Skip to main content
12:00 pm
world are talking about that. when and if we discuss about a trusted boundary, that's what people are talking the. they are manufactured within the united states or elsewhere. .. each one of those elements are probably designed in multiple countries most likely manufacture the components in multiple countries.
12:01 pm
they were integrated components in multiple countries, and that becomes the particular product. any one of these tablets or computers or smart phones that you have has likely touched more than 40 countries along the way. is it really possible to talk about an indigenous manufacturing them as we are managing the risk? the distribution. we need to think about secure distribution channels that distribution of all of the multiple components coming into another component that then goes to market, and when we think about that distribution channel and that procurement channel, we need to give the vendors credit that they actually have vetted their suppliers and those distribution channels because they don't want counterfeit products getting to market, so we need to use their trusten channel partners, their value added resellers and or off of the vetted tables of gsa and at
12:02 pm
the end of the year, because it is the 25th although i think most of procurement is shut down, some people might have an extra thousand dollars or $2,000 to buy whatever product, and i'm talking about the government. you may not want to go to gsa at this forest to veto this point because you can't get a counterfeit product if you go to each pay one of the non-trusted channels -- ebay one of the most non-trusted channels. on our infrastructure we are going to hope it is all assembled in a good way and there is no vulnerability interest that we tend to agree that all of these components. and now you are responsible. it's almost the end of the delivery part of whatever that trusted supplier was coming and now you are going to have to operate. operation requires that we
12:03 pm
actually follow best practices. and enforce information assurance policy. all of us want our 24/7 uptime of these things, so the 24/7 of time without having the security process in place also mean is available and accessible to anybody that might be able to penetrate that former ability. within the guidelines and other simple information assurance control help manage or reduce that risk of operation, and that's an essential handoff once we've delivered the product to market, and we are going to operate we should operate in what the industry says are the best ways to secure and operate it. we need to maintain it. as far as the sixth part of the supply chain lifecycle and maintaining needs to confirm the integrity of the network coming and we need to continue to confirm the integrity of the
12:04 pm
network. what does that mean? sometimes we outsource the updates of the network and sometimes we have just automatic updates that just happens like to stay. so we need to think about ensuring that we have not automatically through that patching or through the outsourcing of the maintenance we haven't crafted the enterprise. again we can talk about supply chain integrity and managing the risks, the risk is a management structure among each of these aspects. finally, we are going to retire some part of that component and oftentimes we are seeing for the humanitarian purposes or for the citizens services we are actually handing over their use and the older components and we are giving them away to schools and or developing nations.
12:05 pm
well, the information while you may have thought that it was erased it is usually still there on the computer and those of you that are the experts in the audience and hour online, you know you can pretty much recover that. and so, if you don't want your data exposed and you want to manage your risk you will have to melt down whatever is the component that stored your data, and so the responsible retirement of the overall components are also part of the supply chain risk-management. there are a number of medications that we can put in place from the platform to the software insurance to the preferred suppliers and the independent certification that's mutually recognized by countries around the world the standard based certifications are part of the assurances or part of the way that we manage the risk. whether that is the international standards organization that published many
12:06 pm
of the saber security standards including one set of standards that just came out about six weeks ago to the common criteria certification that is mutually recognized by many countries around the world and has lapps where we can test for the product before it gets integrated into ever overall infrastructure and enterprise. so i would like to kind of clothes with a few points. we need to recognize that this is a global ict ecosystem that all of our countries are increasing in all of our companies are in getting into our infrastructure because it promises gdp growth and sufficiency. it promises the productivity. that economic policy verses of the security requirement needs to be balanced. we need to think about those anchor tenants, that although the the world recognized leaders
12:07 pm
it doesn't mean that its efficacy of the product are not without items for things the we need to be worried about. so therefore we need to have a consumer report waiting system for the services and consider that just because ag works with a bee doesn't mean it will work with c and as we are rolling out the next generation product every three months, every 60 days and we are inventing and integrating it into the system and we are so enamored with with those products will bring as far as agility and efficiency we need to start debating whether or not they are performing the way we need the performing and introducing vulnerabilities into the enterprises we find them unacceptable. from the policy and technology perspective, we do need a mix of market levers. most of the companies in the government, because they are responsible for the essential services and citizens' safety are trying to convert to the
12:08 pm
kaput control into the system, control back into the system and many of the countries are talking about regulation, a lot of regulation. well, in many ways if we want to have adoption of the policy and we are going to encourage the adoption of a policy and we want to have that behavior change, we need to talk about changes also in providing an incentive and i am going to give you an example. we have a policy in the united states that talks about to we want to have energy diversity and efficiency and limit the emissions put into the environment. and that policy is in complemented by a series of subsidies and or tax relief and or credit, however you want to think about it, to encourage that policy. we, as citizens, get paid or get a tax credit for write-off of driving the fuel efficient and electric car, right? you get to go on the high
12:09 pm
occupancy vehicle lane with an electric car. it's an incentive to buy a fuel efficient and or a car that meets the energy policy of the country. as citizens we also get a tax write-off if we buy fuel efficient windows and heating and cooling systems. businesses like the potomac and others that are probably in the room today they also get tax write-offs for buying and installing energy-efficient fuel efficient, lower emission heating and cooling systems, windows etc and their businesses and adopting more green policies and diversified energy policies. and then third, for those businesses to try to encourage innovations again there's a 17% tax credit for research and development for a new technology and the energy in this field.
12:10 pm
if we are going to get serious about cybersecurity, our policy and the market leaders that we use need to follow suit coming and we need to stop talking just about regulation coming and we need to start talking about market incentives to get to that option. if this requires partnership. we need to build and secure the society together there requires a team and requires us to meet regularly and understand what incentivizes both parties. one is about the bottom-line profit, innovation and competitiveness and a globalized market. the other is about national sovereignty, national security, and overall economic growth. it's time to bridge the conversation, and i think the potomac -- thank the potomac institute because it is going to take time, money and we need to reduce the exposure to get there. thank you. [applause]
12:11 pm
>> melissa come thank you so much. i feel like we should give some college credit just for attending this great class. adjustable notes as to how this applies to the communications supply chain. i will add just from my experience at the sec it plays into what melissa hathaway was talking about, the policy levers are market letters to the co -- levers. i'm not speaking as to the specific lists, but obviously the communications infrastructure they have to be concerned about the fact it comes across all the other critical infrastructures, energy and others. what are those thoughts?
12:12 pm
well, if you're concerned about both software and hardware that is in the infrastructure is a possibility for the lack of security and information leaking out so to speak. and dr. robert hutcheson at the lab also talks about it and every time he speaks a major concern about the integrity of the database so the fact is getting in and actually changing the ground troop is a major concern. you think of the old movies where you say i'm sorry, you're dead. no, i'm not. it's getting in and altering the data base is a major concern. and the other an outright active war kind of thing where you have a kill switch for the communications network so those are things that you can be concerned about. how do you protect against those? we talked about private infrastructure, so there is the role for the government but you have to be concerned about the heavy role where you are diminishing the capabilities of the private industry to protect
12:13 pm
itself which it already has an incentive to do. so as melissa said, you have to have the proper role for government and incentivizing the private industry. what we are talking about right there is the very fact the basic bedrock fact is security costs money. someone is paying for it. so can the government help in creating a new market? can we create incentives for that to add security to the system? one of the things, the different ideas that were kicked around while i was working on this, some people thought perhaps the government should review the procurement of the major carriers. that may be a step too far. that may slow down the system and impede the private companies from doing it, but it is one of the things on the table.
12:14 pm
another question is the buying power, and i think that brett lambert referred to this. the government insisted in this contract on certain things perhaps that is a way to encourage it but as he mentioned we move the decades to the commercial off-the-shelf technology and another one this is one of them we put together at the fcc, the tiered system supply chain risk-management. understand not every piece of equipment can be regulated by the government or necessarily protected by industry. but maybe you need to concentrate on those areas that are most important. so, for instance in the communication networks there is a piece of equipment called the signaling transfer point. like a lot of equipment right now, it has a way back to its
12:15 pm
home company that may be if it's in the united states it can be someplace else, too. yet give to get out the network, so perhaps stp need the same protection that he would need for the avionics. and then as you move down from there maybe you can use best practices. maybe you can use the standards of the supply chain management if it may be best practices thinking different things but we have to understand anything that is done in this area costs money. so, with that kind of overview i would like to move now to some questions for the panel and then open up for your questions in a little while the debate in this regard since there was this discussion i would like to start with a question of trusted
12:16 pm
suppliers and what role trusted suppliers might be able to make in this. each one of them hinted at this but i will open it up to you. what do you mean by trusted supplier? what are the implications and ramifications in the policy that we should continue or should pursue? >> you brought up first. >> there are rules for all three of the elements you described and ways you can attack the problem and i think the issue that we find ourselves in particularly in the government is we try to find very bumper sticker solutions to complex problems so there is a tendency to gravitate towards a solution that is easily understood by not just the customer but by the legislation, the legislators that would have to pass it in
12:17 pm
the contract and impose it. that leads you to building around things because that is the easy solution. you can do that in some cases and that is a necessary approach where there are not unique opportunities that the industry standards so like you said the tiered system. my reference is to trust the boundaries as they are a good solution for some things, but it's a very narrow, very specific set of challenges for a very unique product is the government faces. it's a very extensive solution and you could pursue that for a wide range of things. you could find yourself several billions of dollars later in several years down the road being able to manufacture a perfect data chip. you lose the access to the innovation and the commercial technologies there has to be balanced trusted supplier.
12:18 pm
something that is lost in this conversation is the motivation of the other side. when i say the other side, who is on the supply chain causing the problems and the vast majority is really criminal behavior in many cases in the supply chain. these are people that were doing this for profit and that is what i would call the yellow tape issue. that's where you need aggressive prosecution. you need to differentiate the suppliers who behave in this manner and make sure they don't supply to the u.s. government or to our prime contractors but that is a yellow tape issue. the more complex issues are those who are trying to attempt to enter the supply chain for the nefarious purposes for failure or exultation and that is where i think our main challenge is that we face and you have to come up with different solutions to each problem.
12:19 pm
it's not going to be a one-size-fits-all, no matter how much we would like it to be. you can't take an ax and will be successful program in the department of defense for managing the supply chain and then all of a sudden decide that you are going to apply that single solution to everything the department of defense by is. we wouldn't people to buy anything if that were the case. >> the only thing i would add is the trusten suppliers of objects but also as melissa referred to in her talk those that support those things the trust that might install or maintain them as well. >> i think we are talking about multiple definitions of a trusted supplier to the if you look at it from the business point of view, many of the
12:20 pm
supply years have to go through a set of requirements that means whatever those security brandt integrity of the overall company whether it's a background investigation the companies have to go through to supply to other companies to meeting all of the legal requirements, for example the corruption act for mean osha standards and i'm just citing the ones in the united states they have to meet the requirements of many different countries laws, and sometimes it is difficult to become a supplier to a high brand-name a anchor tenant because they don't want to have their brand
12:21 pm
integrity challenge door product challenge and they are trying to deliver the best product at the best point possible to get more market share and global dominance. so when we talk of a trusted suppliers that one set of suppliers and that's another set of getting into the to process these are both very important. >> dennis was speaking from mississippi in case you couldn't tell from my accent. when you're eating cat fish you don't know if it came from the delta or the vietnam. the food source is truly global but with extending that to deny what you just a little bit further we do have the food and drug administration, the united states department of agriculture regulations, and so to extend your analogy is there a role for
12:22 pm
regulation in cyberspace? what are the proper roles as melissa mentioned the policy levers to read this is to each of the panelists. >> as i said at the opening remarks, we don't need policies, so there were not there is a role for the regulation or other methodology is up for others in the government to decide. with that said come having to have some set of standards, however that is, for the folks to know what is and what is the mark to shoot for seems to us to be really important. now, how one takes the standards and moves to make progress is a subject which is up for a lot of discussion and debate right now.
12:23 pm
>> i didn't realize cat fish could swim that far there has to be a combination of incentives but it's like anything else in business and the more we can assist in crafting the commercial standards which tend to drive the technology and applique those i think it's a more appropriate lever where we might find ourselves coming up with great standards but alienating the jury technological way that we are seeking to obtain. >> when i moved on to upton sinclair perhaps it requires somebody to expose what's going on in order for the different behavior changes to happen, so we are looking for the upton
12:24 pm
sinclair cybersecurity. >> it's a jungle. >> one of the things that has come up in your discussions or the counterfeit chips, you missed some fairly high level open source concerns about the green market components showing that in places they shouldn't and the implications, so what would you say the mechanisms are putting in place the limit for the counterfeit product from reaching the marketplace and there for reaching our critical infrastructure. >> this is not my purview. we have an entire operation. i think in the pentagon when you wanted to get a lot of people that meetings ten years ago you use the word transformation command five years ago you use the word cyber and now you use
12:25 pm
the word supply chain. it's amazing how many people are interested in it these days, but there's a whole group of individuals at the dod and within the services looking specifically at that question. i tend to look at it. my portfolio is from the industrial base how we arrive and interact with the industrial base but it's a very serious challenge and i can tell you the supply chain folks under the osd with each of the services are looking at it to try to come up with these not one-size-fits-all solutions that try to come up with something that is not just appropriate for today but scalable and flexible enough will be appropriate in five to ten years and i would be happy to put people in touch if you are interested in knowing about them but there's a lot of aggressive work going on right now.
12:26 pm
>> so, we talked about authorities and some of the things that the various levers that we might have out there. we talked about the markets and those types of things. are there things the government could do -- is there a way through procurement that we could influence things? you mentioned on ways to get people to meetings by using buzz words. the buzz words people run through all of you have to do in the past is say industrial policy. in the communications industry there is a great deal of i guess you could say mechanisms and all that goes with it that is done
12:27 pm
some place else other than the united states and even those companies you would typically call americans built all over the world was melissa said. is there a place for industrial policy and is there a place for regulation? >> i think the market tends to work pretty well. i would echo what melissa said. it tends to be self correcting. we can't always wait around for it to solve correct without some incentives and that is what we are trying to apply. the industrial policy has the connotation of imposing some onerous and objectionable standards upon the industry and i think that we are trying to do the opposite. we are trying to come up with a reasonable approach where we work with the industrial base in the supply chain first of all, to better understand what issues they face and then figure out
12:28 pm
what levers we have in the government whether they are on the incentive side or tax credits what we can help apply to make that u.s. companies more competitive internationally. we have a lot of vehicles to that in the defense production act is one. manufacturing technology programs both of which fall under my purview but there's a host of other ones. that is what we are looking at incentives, not disincentives. my personal opinion is the strict regulations and restrictions when you talk about technology is never really worked over the long period there are short-term fixes but you end up with a perfect data in this context, so i think there is a balance there. there is an inappropriate role for the government to play but i think it's most appropriate when the government can work with international standards organizations and people that are really driving the technology side of things and then focus what is unique about
12:29 pm
our products. >> i think i said give too as i said, we need to have a mix of the different markets whether it is a regulation or incentive based and oftentimes you need both. but you also need to think it's almost like throwing a stone and the pond and there will be a ripple of fact. the united states began the conversation about the supply chain integrity, about five years ago because i was one of the people who did it, and it never i think occurred to anybody they would have such a ripple affect a around the world where so many countries would begin talking about it would only be indigenous manufacturing and indigenous suppliers, and not just for the national
12:30 pm
security systems, but the telecommunications systems and the like. .. and so as we look at the mix of things we'll use in order
12:31 pm
to get whatever our policy is or wants to be, then we really need to think about the unintended consequences of whatever decision that the united states leads with because many look to the united states as the leader in the discussion of this particular area. >> i would add that no matter what levers are decided to be used it is always important to sit back and reflect a bit on the context why we're even having the conversation. that the dependencisy on this space, cyberspace is significant. the threat we face as a nation is real, growing and evolving. evolving in the sense that it started out in a way of theft, right? we'll call it espionage, intellectual property theft, an evolution to disruption, keeping others from being able to access the services that they might want to. and our real concern and fear as a nation that it could evolve past that possibly to destruction.
12:32 pm
so whatever the levers are used, it's in the context of knowing that this, with our dependency, is a real important area for us to work and that it's not a hypothetical threat, it is a threat that is real and growing and evolving that we'll have to together address. >> so melissa mentioned some of those levers and perhaps they're both on the regulatory and the market side. do, are there authorities right now for doing that type of regulation? do they exist right now? is this something that would take legislation? >> we have many regulators in the united states of which have authorities that could address parts of these problems. you know, we have the federal communications commission, jamie and many authorities there used to advise the commissioners on to help bring about a
12:33 pm
standard of care within the telecommunications market and if they were so bold they could extend it to the internet service providers. the federal energy regulatory commission has the ability to ask for, along with states blessing, standards of care within the electric utilities sector. and i stress that there is twofold regulators there and not many people appreciate that there is price fixing to insure that we have state, states help set the price point so that we get electricity that we can afford and then the federal regulators impose another set of standards that what must be met and that twofold regulatory process exists in other countries in the world but it is quite profound here in the united states. and so the ferc authorities are not necessarily as
12:34 pm
strong as the state authorities when it comes to the electric utility sector. the nuclear sector is also regulated and they do have a very strict regulation when it comes to cybersecurity and so we could learn from what they have done well and how that might be hurting the industry. the all publicly held companies are also regulated through the securities exchange commission and as we all know cybersecurity is now a hot topic within the sec and they announced some proposed dialogue on standards of choir within publicly held companies. the financial services sector is also generally regulated and so is the credit card sector through compliance. so there are regulators that could, need to learn more about the threat of what's at stake and work with industry so that we can get to a better ability to
12:35 pm
deliver essential services, manage that risk and reduce the vulnerabilities. >> i think that work with industry is a key point. bret or dennis? >> at this point i would like to open it up to our audience here and what i would ask you that you raise your hand and pat, our research assistant, will bring you a, okay, so randy is already coming up here right now. and but if you would state your name and organization if you would like to and then your question. randy. >> thanks, jamie. randy ford with raytheon. mr. lambert, one of the standard constructs that the department of defense, research, development, test and evaluation. i like the folks on the t & e part of this and whether that may be one of the solutions. to test and evaluate the different products in the supply chain to see if they were cyber resilient, cyber secure and then to evaluate
12:36 pm
it or measure exactly how much. so just be interested in your comments whether we could take what has been a decades-long construct in terms of dod thinking and practice and is that something that could be extended to the cyber supply chain to come up with the testing models, the testing infrastructure and so forth that would give us better insight, understanding into the vulnerabilities, resilience of the various systems? thank you. >> again, the rtde or the r&d side that max runs and works on this as well as the t & e side in the department. in fact they already do this in many of them. it goes back to, what i said earlier, can be a very effective mitigation tool for what is in essence criminal behavior where things are introduced not true parts or somehow reconditioned parts or what not. it is more difficult when you get into items where you may have to do destruct tiff
12:37 pm
testing because you can't do destructive testing on everything. so it has to be more of a sampling issue. certainly one of the things we're not trying to start from, from scratch, we're trying to look throughout the department and this is part of the task forces that are going on, look throughout the department on those areas, t and. being one of the key ones as well as some other acceptance criteria that go on now with our systems how we could better leverage them, either by doing additional testing or by, requesting or requiring more up front information before that comes in. that solve as large portion of it. it may address even a large portion of the yellow tape thing i had mentioned earlier. but even there you still have this, the more fundamental and frankly the much more serious in terms of vulnerabilities of those actors that may be introducing elements that are very difficult to catch through regular t & e or any
12:38 pm
other delivery criteria that we currently use. >> dennis. >> just add on to what jim said, talk about some of the attributes of cyberspace from the beginning and one was continual change. agreeing with a role of test and evaluation we also have to put that in the context that cyberspace is continually changing as are the objects or things it is made up of. so you may test and evaluate at one moment but with upgrades, changes, as was mentioned by melissa on the cyber update tuesdays or whatever, the devices themselves are often morphing and changing substantially. so one has to factor that into the discussion as well with. >> think there was one over here behind the stanchion to me. >> hi, i'm sidney freedberg from aol defense hiding behind the pillar here. a twofold question.
12:39 pm
one is, obviously there is a lot to talk about counterfeit parts and so forth. we all have concern about that. how many cases and how severe the cases have we actually had date there was a chip calling home as it were to some nefarious actor? or was it simply a matter of it's counterfeit but actually represents that malign threat that is either actively spying or, you know, sitting there as a potential kill switch for us to disrupt or destruct a system? you know, to the extent you can talk about that in an open forum. and the second question, you know, as we look to fix this we talked a lot about incentives but what would those incentives be? what are the models from other sectors perhaps how you actually make it appealing for peel to address these problems as opposed to just using the stick of regulation? thanks. >> i think there have been
12:40 pm
some public comments on hearings on your first question but without knowing specifically what the public comments have i will take a pass on it but there are certainly, we have seen instances, but i couldn't get into the numerical numbers or specifics, unless you want to? [laughter] and i think, actually you're probably better to ask on incentives portion of the question. i mean what do you see as the levers that we could use other than just -- do you have a perspective? >> incentives. so i'm going to call back to the energy policy and we had a mix of incentives. so you need to create sort of the demand curve or the market adoption and so first i would look at an individual tax credit of x number of dollars for encouraging every household to have either a managed security service that they
12:41 pm
buy from their internet service provider but it is subsidized through a tax credit. or if you want to take it down to a point solution, which i wouldn't recommend, you could have anti-virus software as a writeoff. that if you keep that up-to-date and whatever your subscription rate is. i think personally bringing it up to an isp is probably smarter thing to do because you get it at the upstream and not at the downstream of your entity or your end point. for businesses, again, have, again the internet service providers providing more of a managed security service to all of the infrastructures and have that be some type of a tax writeoff. i would extend the 17% r&d credit to the ict industry for innovation of the products so the less generation product that has less vulnerabilities in it, use as secured development life cycle, has all the assurances in place from
12:42 pm
beginning, design, to end of retirement, for those product lines and so that you're building more secure products, services, et cetera, from start to finish. and then you're going to get a better ecosystem somewhere down the line. whether that's three years from now or five years from now you will have more secure products hitting the market and therefore reduce your exposure in the long term by the policy and the incentives. if you want to take on more of an industrial policy, and, i have written about it and we're using this, we could, in fact, start to declare our ict industry and the internet environment as an essential industry to the growth and health of the united states of america like we've done for our defense industrial base. we subsidize parts of our industrial base. we insure we're going to buy x-amount from the industrial base because they are a critical supplier to the overall national security and economic health of the nation. so we could leverage the
12:43 pm
defense production act and other levers that we have in order to make sure we have the products and services coming from an essential industry that is actually driving our gdp growth and one of our largest export industries in the world that might be important for us to consider those other levers of incentives to insure the health and well-being of that sector that is driving the overall growth and well-being of our country. >> i would just add along those lines you're exactly right and two years ago we set up under the defense production act something called, it was very helpful in this, the defense production act committee and that is a committee of all the deputies of all the agencies, 17 different departments that meet. we have teams that have been formed and we're actually funding programs that are cross government programs but also more importantly frankly are their very vital programs to the future of national, our economic, national economic well-being. and one of the teams, there
12:44 pm
are three currently set up, one is on energy, one is on metal and third is on telecommunications. the telecommunications team is probably the most active. we're pursuing as a part of a wider the programs that were announced at youngs town to create centers of excellence to work with companies in the private sector as well as universities with the government doing a one-to-one, minimum one-to-one match and we're developing these really centers of excellence somewhat becaused on the fran who haver institute if you know them. i would expect in the coming months to see one dedicated or see pursuit of one dedicated towards advance telecommunications equipment which we've identified in the defense production act committees working in the working group as vital to the future not just to the u.s. national security but u.s. economic well-being as well. >> bret? >> sorry. this gentleman over here.
12:45 pm
then the lady in the light jacket. >> institute for defense analyses. i would like to follow-up on your food analysis. i like the analogy. if i go to a food chain and eat a sandwich and get ill from it because they did not exercise proper standard of care i have a legal recourse. when a company that gathers data about me is penetrated, my identity is compromised, i have to spend money and time on my own with no legal recourse against the company providing, hoarding that data. what is your position on providing a legal avenue for, as an incentive for companies to raise the bar that security now is not a cost, it is a protection from legal liability? >> that would be on the stick side of the carrot-stick incentives there. >> that stick exists in the federal, oh god, ftc,
12:46 pm
federal trade commission and they are actually now using their authorities to help protect your identity and or prosecute the companies that don't protect your identity and have a stated policy on those breaches. the ftc, if you're not aware of what their authorities are, they're responsible for protecting us and our e-commerce and all things that go along with e-commerce and so if your company, if linkedin, yahoo!, pick the breach, had a data policy that they were this protecting these things and most of these fall under the laws of the states currently of the data breach acts of 47 of the u.s. states and territories, then they have to protect it. and so the ftc recently prosecuted windham hotels for the breach that they had for losing your credit cards
12:47 pm
and your identitis. google just settled a lawsuit with the ftc, and many others. so ftc is coming and starting to use their authorities to protect e-commerce and us and our privacy, our data and, that, so that lever exists. if they, i think you're going to start to see industry change the way that they're going about handling our data in the future. >> do you think there's a place for private right of action, i mean, or ftc enough? >> there are class-action suits. the most recent breach, i think e harm any, there is a -- eharmony, there is class-action suit from mishandling of that data about a month and a half ago. so you're seeing courts starting to weigh in from both the citizenry and ftc weighing in from holding businesses responsible. >> in the light jacket.
12:48 pm
>> hi, i co-chaired the defense science energy security task force with jim schlesinger and i currently just been named the technical cochairman of the chief of naval operations vulnerability on energy security and i would like to talk about, first of i like to take the opportunity say that, the states and ferc on electricity and energy regulation, the states regulate almost exclusively for rate, rates, not for reliability at all. and ferc regulations are, they can take effect after a process that takes four to six years. in light of the rate of threat which is something else i wanted to talk about, we have no effective regulatory system. so i'm particularly concerned about sif and particularly concerned about cyber and i, i would like to call into question the
12:49 pm
perishability of cyber solutions. the lot of the discussion today, which i completely agree with all of it, focused on the cyber solutions to the cyber problems but i would like to point out that because of the rate of the threat, particularly with the bad actors, we might think about dumb solutions and i wanted your thoughts on this, such as spare parts and you know, the ability to take things completely down off of cyber and talk about noncyber solutions to the problem, work arounds, diversity of suppliers, that kind of thing. >> well, you're right. i will comment on the energy. i'm not familiar with the energy side. certain there has to be diversity of responses and i'm fond of former deputy secretary lin said this is classic asymmetric threat
12:50 pm
only in this case we're spending billions of dollars against half a dozen guys in a garage wearing flip-flops drinking a bunch of red bull. it is a very difficult threat and always changing and how to get your arms around it is difficult and our solutions have to be dynamic. there are some capabilities that lend themselves to disposeability of systems. that is not something the department typically does. when we buy something we would like to design it, procure it, and keep it for 30 years. and that really is not a model for the future unless you're on water, sailing a big ship. and even there, what you put on that ship is going to have to change. so i think there's room for a, and there is a dialogue along that, everything from disposeability to resiliency, to duplication. and i wouldn't, particularly in the i-t world, i wouldn't dismiss we tend to be the
12:51 pm
tail more than the dog. one aspect is not to try to control the space but to get lost in it that is a solution for many of our systems. in components are so ubiquitous why would you want to point out you have to have a specialized one. i think there is a range of policy and technical solutions that need to be pursued and we are looking at that entire spectrum. >> anybody else on that one? >> i think, what you had started saying about physical and virtual or cyberspace being, you know, solutions maybe not just for one or for the other. the convergence that i talked about at the beginning is not just applying in the space we call cyberspace alone. that convergence is happening between the physical and the virtual worlds simultaneously. so therefore solutions in the space understandably often have to have components in both the
12:52 pm
physical and the virtual world to be effective based on experiences that we've seen. and in part, when you have a virtual world, it is, in fact virtual created. so anything you change in that space can actually be rechanged or unchanged or done. so permanency of change in cyberspace, while change is always ongoing, the permanency of any change you make is short-lived, right because the space can be remorphed, recreated and adjusted. which makes it more important to look at the physical and virtual dimensions of problems all the time. >> over here? >> pat sullivan, independent consultant. i haven't heard anybody explicitly refer to cloud computing today. is that considered to be a solved problem or what levers need to be put in place for that? thank you.
12:53 pm
>> anybody know? >> i look at clouds from both sides now. than i had before, but, there's just, there are so many, you could have an entire session i think just on cloud come computing and the opportunities and vulnerabilities. there are a lot of smart people working at it. unfortunately for us they're in your domain so. >> so i would say that cloud computing not necessarily to say a solved problem that everyone knows exactly what to do with it and therefore, issue done but if i take your question one more step further is, what about security in cloud computing, it's a good opportunity to make what i think is an important observation. we typically looked at security as an add-on to what it is that we're doing such that we have the costs for doing whatever we're doing in information technology or information
12:54 pm
and communications technology and then there's this added cost to do security. but what i think excites us with cloud computing is we're at a stage of this right now where we can, together, right, you know, the industry and all, architect a solution for which the security is already in it. melissa pointed back to, great thing to start happening back in 1969 with that first message. you know, we didn't have the same context as a nation or individuals in security at that time. so now when we're working on these new technologies we certainly can't. therefore, if we can, it may not be unachievable for us to actually reduce overall costs because we don't have to have additive costs for security if we're actually designing effectively so that we can actually decrease our overall i.t. costs with greater security. and that is something we
12:55 pm
believe can be achievable if we're working to integrate both what it is our requirements, collectively or what kind of performance we want out of these systems with security right from the beginning. >> so i know there are other questions is but i know that our panelists some have to dash after this but i would say, i would stay all afternoon because i'm just fascinated to listen to you. i've learned a great deal, and i particularly enjoyed the interaction between a very knowledgeable audience and a very knowledgeable panel. but would you join me in thanking our panel for this great talk. [applause] and, general mcfalls, it has been great hosting this with national security partners. any comments or -- >> we're looking for the next one. >> absolutely. hope everybody will come back for that. now for closing comments i would like to introduce our ceo, mike swetnam.
12:56 pm
>> i would like to add my congratulations on a good event to the staff here at potomac institute has put it on and the warmest possible thanks to our panel for taking the time to help us kick off this information. hopefully in the long run we can turn it into something that is of benefit to you. that is our goal. by the only most gratifying part of being ceo of the potomac institute it is only part of my life where i get to have the last word, at least for a few minutes. so i want to have to lay out two thoughts in parting today very quickly that, that occurred to me as i listened to the presentations today. the first i would just call everything. complex problems. we're more and more dealing with problems that have such complexity it them they don't lend themselves to easy solutions as bret mentioned a little bit earlier. this is clearly one of the most complex problems ever faced mankind brought on one
12:57 pm
of the best technologies we every invented, the internet. when you hear comments about, trusted foundry or this or that, that doesn't address the problem, the answer is, never no. the answer is, yes and. we need that and this and everything else we can think of and the only problem with that is, it's going to cost a fortune. yes, it is going to cost an awful lot of money but what is it worth? 11, going on 11 years ago, nine years and a month ago we had 3,000 people die because an airplane ran into a building and rand just completed a study published a month ago and says we're spending, the federal government, not the additional cost of administration, the federal government in various forms is spending $6.5 billion a year to just secure air travel. that's a small, minor
12:58 pm
miniscule problem compared to the cyber thing and we're spending $6 billion a year. at some point we'll realize that securing the cyber infrastructure is worth the enormous cost that it is going to cost us. it will cost an awful lot of money. the final thought the role of business and government. we go back and forth on that. the potomac institute has b and g in it technology policy from government and industry and there's a lot of discussion about federal government shouldn't be involved in this type of thing, whether setting policy or enacting it or operating things because the commercial sector will of course do it much better and more efficiently. almost always true but it is also often true that industry won't do it until the government first sets the policy, the standard and does it poorly then we figure out industry can do it better and we buy it from them. >> true. >> remember also because industry will do it better doesn't mean we in
12:59 pm
government shouldn't do it first. with that, those minor thoughts, thank you very much for coming. and remember, this is just the beginning of the discussion. the beginning of a search for the answer, not the end. so your continued efforts and thoughts and input are most important. thank you all very much for coming. [applause] >> i learned a lot from you guys. >> in just a few moments on c-span remarks from the president of yemen on the future of his country in light of security problems and a hunger crisis. he will speak at the woodrow wilson center here in washington. you will be able to see the comments live 1:00 p.m. eastern. again that will be on c-span. tonight, more campaign 2012 coverage with live wisconsin senate debate. tammy baldwin debates former health secretary, tommy thompson. that seat is open due to the retirement of democratic senator herb kohl. the debate is hosted by
1:00 pm
wisconsin broadcasters. and will be on wmtv in milwaukee. for a preview of the debate. here is a look. >> wisconsin is becoming one of the most interesting senate races in the country. you have a state been politically roiling for over two years and the presidential race, for a while seemed very competitive there. president obama seems to have pulled ahead by about five points in the latest polls. some of that has helped seemingly to change the trajectory of the race. earlier this month governor tommy thompson, the republican seemed to have the momentum and at this point his democratic rival, representative tammy baldwin, seems to be within the margin of error or a little ahead. >> host: why is that? >> guest: my best guest is that the baldwin surge, if you want to call it that correspond with president
1:01 pm
obama getting some distance from governor romney. . . she is one of several members of congress trying to run statewide, so she's going to try to define herself in a positive way and he is going to define
1:02 pm
her negatively. >> that debate will be live from wisconsin. we will broadcast from c-span 9 p.m.. tommy thompson and tammy baldwin in their debate. september 11th is a day that changed my life forever and going to go through a power point presentation that is going to outline the accounts of the attack and the things that transpired that day. it gets pretty intense. a lot of things happen very quickly. i'm going to do my best not to ramble on and go too fast rate i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room and you'll get a sense of what i was like to be at the top
1:03 pm
of the food chain, the national command authority as a nation of st. hundred million or attacked by al qaeda terrorists. the first thing in our article is getting medicare costs under control is the number one priority and it's the most untouchable thing. but that is going to cause more trouble than any other problem we've got fiscally in the united states. getting medicare costs under control is the number-one thing. >> you see we also surcharge smokers and the obese for their medicare coverage. where did that idea come from? >> i'm the person who put it in the memo but i didn't have to
1:04 pm
fight very hard for it. also, i ran into this into something i ran in "the washington post" where instead of calling people morbidly obese i called them mega fatties and i was called insensitive, which i guess i probably am. but this is another thing where everybody knows this to be true, and someone has to pay for it. i'm not saying you should bankrupt people, but to there should be penalties. i'm not really a democrat but i'm certainly a maquette for him but you have to be irresponsible for some behavior and somebody's going to pay for it. >> and we should point out also that we are not the only ones making arguments like this. these other bipartisan commission's fiscal fourth headed by owls rosslyn and pete domenici with regard to medicare we need to do something about
1:05 pm
the obese and smokers and they also have a proposal which is more complicated than ours for the restricted spending one end of life care. these are difficult, painful decisions. but we are going to have to face them. up next george washington university health the discussion on oil and gas production in the persian gulf. we will hear about the challenges iraq faces after the country has yet to finalize a law dictating the use of oil profits. tension continues to rise over the oil rights in the government of baghdad and the kurdish region. this is about an hour and a half. >> thank you for the policy event of the fall semester and i would just mention in the way that advertisement we will be having our next program on
1:06 pm
october 23rd and we will get a notice but it will be on jordan. i think i put a title belt there in the crosshairs and we are very fortunate to have dr. washer who is the vice president for studies of the carnegie endowment for the national peace, for our foreign minister of jordan and a free good personal friend who will be coming as well as dr. kurt ryan who is this a sea of political science at appalachian state university and a scholar and person who's written a lot about jordan. so that should be very interesting forum. but tonight, as we gather i always express my appreciation to the exxonmobil corporation which is a founder and a dillinger and gives us a substantial contribution each year to be able to put on these programs and bring some of these guests from out of town, but
1:07 pm
tonight we are right focus on oil politics in the persian gulf and really focus on the prominence of this region in the global energy market. the persian gulf region has an estimated 60% of the world's proven oil reserves and the neighborhood of 40% of the proven gas reserves. six of the top 14 countries in terms of proven oil reserves are in the gulf. five of the country's top oil producers are also located there as well. the united states foreign policy towards the persian gulf has for decades focused squarely on ensuring the free flow of oil from the gulf to the aborted and the soviet union but in recent
1:08 pm
decades. our concern to the region has embroiled us in the two wars in the past 20 years and led to a significant military commitment of military assets in the region and the question arises almost immediately why does the united states expand such efforts and so much of its assets. we are in fact a number three we'll producer in the world and when we import less than 20% of our crude imports from the gulf. so these issues we are going to explores the global energy market, the changing place changing is the persian gulf oil and gas still important and likely to be in the future where the shiastan index in the immediate region when the impact on the region's ability to produce.
1:09 pm
we have the very distinguished panelists. on my right, dr. jean-francois seznec currently adjunct professor at georgetown university. and for the previous ten years, dr. seznec was visiting professor of georgetown university center for contemporary arab studies teaching on business and energy and the gulf. his 25 years' experience in international banking and finance, which ten years was spent in the middle east including two in the years in riyadh and six years in bahrain covering saudi arabia. dr. seznec is the managing partner of the lafayette group, a u.s. based consultant and investment company. his research centers on the influence of the persian gulf political and social variables on the financial markets in the region. he especially focuses on the industrialization of the gulf and in particular the growth of
1:10 pm
the metals and chemicals industry. he holds a an mia from columbia university and his ph.d. from yale. he's published give lectures extensively on chemical and energy waste industries in the gulf and their influence to the trade. next to him, dr. denise natali is the chair of the institute for national strategic studies at the national defense university. over the past two decades she's traveled and lived in the kurdish regions of iraq, turkey, iran and syria and is the author of numerous publications on kurdish politics, economy and identity. her current research focuses on the energy sector development and relations in the post saddam iraq and the other newly
1:11 pm
fertilized states. she also specializes in post conflict relief and reconstruction, having worked for the u.s. office of foreign disaster assistance in pakistan and the post-gulf war and saddam iraqi kurdistan respectively. she received her ph.d. in political science at the university of pennsylvania, masters of international affairs at columbia university school of international and public affairs. she's also studied at the institute in paris. the university of tehran and tell the aviv university. she's also an adjunct assistant professor at the center for peace and security studies at georgetown university and a contributing writer for the monitor and member of the international institute for strategic studies. to her right is matthew
1:12 pm
amitrano, a foreign affairs officer, state office of iraqi affairs. mr. amitrano has covered iraq's energy sector for almost ten years for both the department of state and the defense department, which includes assignments to in the c baghdad. his total service in iraq is roughly equivalent to a full tour, and he developed an overseas technical assistance program for the iraqi minister of oil in the part of commerce and the department of interior working with the minister of electricity and the department of energy and the iraqi ministry of finance and central bank of iraq with the department of treasury and all of these programs together totaled well over $40 million. he has received a superior honor award and an extra model award during his years of service that the department. he has received a certificate of
1:13 pm
achievement for most significant impact on the intelligence community from the defense intelligence agency and the national geospatial intelligence agency. the live in new jersey, the most important point his entire biography is that he is a graduate of the george washington university elliott school of international affairs. [applause] and he did his master's studies at boston university. i've given you a rather extensive biography because these are certainly three people well known an outstanding experts in their field so at this time i would turn it over to dr. seznec. >> thank you very much.
1:14 pm
i think the ambassador gave us a rather interesting assignment here. we probably need about five days to review this but it will be quite interesting. what i might perhaps do more generally is give a general view of the problems in the gulf today, and i might say that the situation for dr. natali for the iraqi and turkish issues that she might pick up on a few things i say and explain in great detail what i will say. i'm really looking for treating both of my colleagues on this panel today because they are well known experts. let me just start a little bit on giving you a sort of general view of what is happening in the gulf today.
1:15 pm
very quickly we have the situation here. we have the persian gulf on this side, so here in saudi arabia the big harbor is to export the oil into the main oil her were in the world to export 10 million barrels a day. then you have the other big seals of course in iraq right here which touches kuwait and of course but north pittard as you can see everything that is green is the oilfields and you see most of the oil is on this side.
1:16 pm
let me put it in a slightly better life here which might be a little dark but might work better. the green marks for the gas fields the largest gas field which it shares with iran. the battle between iran and saudi arabia. there is enormous tension between the two countries and basically what we are seeing today in my view anyway is syria and iraq and in bahrain is a proxy war month between saudi arabia. the saudis want to replace remember king abdullah of jordan i talked at one point of the ark of shiaism would go to syria and
1:17 pm
lebanon and it basically control all of that region and create and put a wedge between saudi arabia and turkey. you have saudi arabia, jordan, the syrian brothers really in charge and linking with of the turks to weaken the iranians. its purpose iran. let's not forget the if 85 million people and saudi arabia only has 20 million locals and seven or 8 million foreigners who wish to iran and a long been known to develop nuclear weapons. the saudis really want to break the back of iran before it is too late and the only way they feel they can do this at this point is to weaken syria and has
1:18 pm
a lot in iran and really getting out and getting the irony in south of syria. that implies getting out of their and their there for founding an army in the position together with the turks who are very much working with the saudis on this matter. so this is the basic background of what is happening in the region today. the fear of course is they are saying it looks if you start creating too much trouble wecn trace the straits of hormuz majority because 16 million barrels a day of oil are coming through the straits of hormuz every day. plus, and perhaps we don't talk enough about that but there is all of the liquid natural-gas which should present today in terms of the usage of the capacity about 60 million tons going to the far east.
1:19 pm
and there is no way that it can go any other way than through the straits of hormuz. another big problem for, you know, for the gulf countries in the streets of hormuz were blocked is everything has to do with the harbors. in my view one of the wonders of the world just as the harbor in dubai and the logistics centers would appear because it is entirely dependent so they would stop in kuwait and the exports from iraq would also appear. of course if they are going to cut the straits of hormuz there would be cutting their own because the pipeline in iran bypasses the streets of hormuz. all of the oil leaves iran.
1:20 pm
i forget the name of it, i'm sorry, from the harbor right here and goes up through the straits of hormuz so they will have no income whatsoever. but if they are desperate enough, they might do it. in terms of the dependence on the streets of hormuz saudi arabia lets me go back where i was before. they are slightly less dependent on this straits of farmers than the other countries. why? because we have a big pipeline in the center which actually has been modified and now to carry 5 million barrels of oil per day and can take 5 million the big field here and the big center all the way to the red sea. they are now exporting
1:21 pm
$8 million of oil for liquids, so without a shortfall it would be much better off than all the others they also build a pipeline right here the gentry one and a half million the day. the kuwaitis would be hurting and the iraqis would be hurting. but the saudis and the u.s.a. would hurt less oppressive government hundred dollars a barrel to $300 a barrel. instead of 500. it's still a difficult situation there's a little bit of tension
1:22 pm
between kuwait and iran on some of the offshore fields. the iranians and the kuwaitis are in the same field but it's not a very big issue. there is tension between qatar on the one hand on the big gas field because the iranians are choosing the qatari stealing their gas because it's true the tories are using the big gas field, and the qataris using 77 tons of their energy per year and i forget the exact amount, but it is one and a half million per day of gas to liquid to make diesel running this. they have a very large fertilizer plant and so on and they also make aluminum from the
1:23 pm
natural gas and the plant. so they are using that field. they are claiming that this could create migration which is not being used and to qatar which is unlikely but over 20 years there could be some migration apparently. it is a bit of an excuse for the iranians to put pressure on the qataris. the fact is the iranians could if they have the technology they could use the gas the same way the qataris are. let's remember iran is the second largest reserves of gas in the world. let's also remember that the iran is a net reporter of natural gas because the gas fields are so badly managed the cannot produce the gas they have and you have to produce on
1:24 pm
turkmenistan so it's crazy but this is hurting because they need foreign technology. they are providing the french and the norwegians are providing technology. devotee and the american companies cannot work there at all. the have been making deals with the chinese and they've signed all of their contract but they haven't produced 1 ounce of gas yet. the contract on oilfields are not here getting the oil out of there they are working on this for five years and produce one an ounce of oil so the chinese are talking big and doing nothing, the actively doing nothing. the chinese do not have at this point the technology to drill offshore.
1:25 pm
the american company to do it and a norwegian company to do it for them and they can't do it because the three countries will not work with the iranians so there is tension here. the tension is very intense and it could escalate and get up into natural war between the countries let me go to iraq a little bit because this is where we have a lot of problems coming it's one of the largest, the second-largest oil field in the world and it's really underutilized and producing less than a million barrels a day because it did not have after all of the war and the sanctions against iraq and so on the fields were in bad shape, but they have signed some interesting contracts with all of the very large companies in
1:26 pm
the world. they've brought all of the big technologies companies or the big oil companies and they've made service agreements in the company's because of exxonmobil to increase production. west portal was producing a hundred thousand perils' a day -- barrels a day and exxon mobile is responsible for increasing production to almost 2 million barrels a day. if they do that then they can get 1 dollar per barrel and they get out of the ground after they've paid their expenses which if there is a very low. that is the only way they could get their foot in the door.
1:27 pm
they are going to increase the capacity hopefully to 4 million barrels a day well, soon. the iraqis are finding enough contracts on all of their oilfields not including the kurdish fields but all of the oilfields south of iraq to increase production to 12 million barrels a day that will probably not happen but most people seem to be relatively confident that iraq would increase its production to about 6 million barrels a day within ten years or so which means iraq would be the second producer of oil, were third after russia and saudi arabia the exporter of oil exporting over 5 million barrels a day. there are problems with that in
1:28 pm
a sense because the foreign companies are not very happy with the pricing. the minister of oil at that time made some fabulous deals. everybody was eager to get their foot in the door in iraq that they were able to negotiate this beautifully well. and exxon went from $4.50 a barrel and they went down to 140 for the same field. exxon is worried that they will never be able to increase production is properly because the bureaucracy because they are unbelievable and for instance in order to bring the production out of the ground requires putting into the ground the very large volumes which is the
1:29 pm
technique used by the saudis in the field and they produce 5 million barrels a day on the field and they're putting in 6 billion barrels a day of water, so to do this in this field right there they've never got their permits to get that pipeline through to the field there involved in making the decision they cannot just get a permit to do it so they are extremely frustrated with of this and all of the companies are active in iraq frustrated by the bureaucracy so everybody is afraid it is not going to happen very quickly. so even the 6 million the day is may be quite iffy. what happens is exxon turned around and in the last few
1:30 pm
months signed a very large contract with the kurds. the kurds have been managing independently from the rest of the country to the great an audience of the iraqi central government, so there is a huge tension between the two. .. export themselves 150 barrels a day which amounts to only $3
1:31 pm
billion. so obviously that should be very much in favor of the curds. however, there is something else happening here. the curds want the independents to bring all the companies they want and the companies want to bring in the cur the agreement with the kurds -- marge multinational oil companies. why do they do this? they want them there. and why do they want them there? because they know that ultimately they will produce a lot more oil through these big oil companies. let me just hammer this a little more and then denise can talk about that whether there's any truth to it or not. when exxonmobil decided to sign
1:32 pm
a deal they took the risk of losing the deal with the iraqis. that's big deal. they were thinking of having access to 1 million barrels. they would have to pay the iraqis more money. now they are worried their can't do that. they're going to have cur dish which should produce up to 200,000 barrels a day. it is not that attractive for exxonmobil. i'm wondering where y did they go in the kurdish territory? what is the big issue? the curd dish prove jensens are at north. you can see the border to iran here and turkey there. there are three provinces a the the north here. they do not include -- they do not include this field and this town here called [inaudible] and they traditionally is the
1:33 pm
center of the kurdish life going back hundreds of years. saddam hussein took over and kicked out the kurds and replaced the kurds by people from the south. and after the saddam hussein was kicked out, the kurds have been asking that you should be referendum on the town to see if they want to join the federation. their own group of provinces to be part of the kurdish territories. if that -- and supposedly that's a referendum to haphazard never happened. nobody wants it because many kurds are coming in to the town every day to claim back their where they're coming from. many are leaving and the town is probably a kurdish city today. and if kurds -- and if they became a kurdish city all of a sudden the town and went under the town under the
1:34 pm
administration of the kurdish territory. at that point, one would say, and i wager that the kurds would declare independents. now, that's really requires three things, i think, from the kurdish standpoint as far as i can tell. it would require that to get the oil, they to be able to get the oil out, the problem of the area is that, you know, you have oil, you are to get it out of there. you can only get it out by pipeline. today there is a pipeline from the field which has the example of 1.57 million barrels which go down in the iraqi territory and up to turkey. it goes through iraqi land, so to speak. the iraq i cans could block the pipeline. the kurds would to build, and they already signed a contract with the turkish company to put up the pipeline directly through their own territory in to tour
1:35 pm
ski. they would also have to have turkish deport. for the pipeline to work it has to go through the kurdish territories in to turkey. and the have turks have to eye prove it. and the third -- and the third point as i mentioned would be they would have to take the town. those are the three major points. whether the turks would agree to this, i don't know, of course. but it's very counter intuitive they might. but i think they may because today the largest investors in the kurdish territory are the turks. they are close to the present government of turkey. they are, of course, far from the pkk and the problems of syria, which are complicating matters enormously. but i think ultimately the turks would like to have a very rich and independent kurdish stand not far from the border and that
1:36 pm
would, you know, bring the kurds to independents. so i'll leave at at that and denise can have fun with this. [laughter] you leave me with very easy issue. >> yeah. >> thank you. i would like to thank the elliot school and the ambassador for inviting me here. can i move this? like that? like this? okay. thank you. i will like to pick up on some of the issues that professor seznec discussed about iraq. largely to look at this great potential in oil and gas that iraq has, but why this potential is unlikely to be realized as
1:37 pm
professor seznec said the estimates of 8 to 12 million barrels a day or more likely an iffy four million by the ten years. because of very important political issues, and what i'd like to look at. some of the political issues following up on the kurdish baghdad, complications, i'm not as optimistic and i'll give you the reasons why. and what are some of the implications on the key regional actors mainly turkey and mainly iran? first of all, so isled like to look at some of the important potential that iraq has. iraq has an estimated 143 million barrels of oil reserved in courtesy of the region. the kurds may say in public relations statement they have 45 million. they don't have 45 million. the they have 17 the rest in despited territory which don't
1:38 pm
belong to the region. you can look at the large 143 million barrels and the iraq i can government has brought on the single point mooring which is something to be comemed commented and over the last several months, has realized production levels of pre1990 war over 3 more balls a -- 3 million barrels a day. there's gas in iraq 100 trillion cubic felt. 70 of which is primarily associated gas in the southern fields. and you have about 15 to 20 trillion of nonassociated gas in the northern areas in the cureddish areas. one of the problems though is that up to know, most of the focus has been on the oil potential and in iraq there is not a developed gas market. there's no infrastructure and no pricing mechanisms for a gas market as you do see or have in the rest of the gulf.
1:39 pm
now aside from the political issues, i'm sorry, the potential, and i will leave to matt some of the technical challenges as professor says knick said assessing the field the bureaucratic bottle neck and the infrastructure, the issue that's probably the biggest is the political une solved political issues rooted in the constitution and the nature of the iraqi state. this whole energy sector development iraq has been set in highly politicized context. so that in the 2005 constitution that people hail as the mark of federalism in iraq is actually a disaster because it intentionally [inaudible] lets the issue of in the iraq i can state vague so key issues of resource, revenue and power sharing were never fully clarified. there were some articles that can be interpreted in both ways by the krg and the central government over who has control to exploit development and
1:40 pm
export oil. so that these duovery fundament dpircht views of oil sector development have emerged. that in the central government who said oil exploration can be managed be but is ultimate under the control as it has been under the central government about kurds pushing toward are more decentralized view of oil sector management. the key issues here are where hydrocarbons can been experted, how they can managed, what's the legal framework to be used, which contract model can be use. and i can't go in to the specifics there's a big difference between the technical sharing contracts used in the south, and the production sharing hopes for in the north. because there is no legal gi to this other than what the kurds hope to pay because they have no money to pay. and again, what kind of legal framework. there's still is after five
1:41 pm
years no national hydrocarbon law in iraq. there is nothing to assure payment monetaryization of production and some of the other associated risks. so you have one, the very important political unresolved issues of the nature of the iraqi state from which all of this is formed between baghdad and [inaudible] secondly, you have rootedness which has evolved since 2003 is land disputes. and because of this vague situation, because of undefined political authority, the krg has taken advantage of let's say the opportunities the political vacuum, the security issues that have plagued baghdad since 2003, to take large swaps of land under their control. part of it could be [inaudible] it's not all of it. some of them are territories
1:42 pm
that were kurdish that were -- [inaudible] there were many that were not kurdish had no history of being kurdish and it includes these two which we will get to that. that includes oil contracts. these movements the controlled of land, the max max alist behavior has been interpreted by other arab iraqis has kurdish overstep. what you had in 2003 some type of understanding let's work with the kurds, you know, there's something here. over the years there has been a backlash to the point where there's now a growing antikurdish sentiment even among sunni arabs who have turned at some point with kurds against the central government of prime minister to turn toward him against the kurds. what does it mean? it means more unlikelihood of
1:43 pm
signing a national hydrocarbon law. they have not gained the leverage in the central government they would like people to believe or what twas happening. there it no agreement on a national hydrocarbon law. it is important note too that yes, these contracts -- another reason why the krg has signed these very handsome contracts, giving oil companies 20%. it's not just the profit margin pfc means you have ownership ownership of the reserve. you can book them. and this is important for oil companies because it's about booking reserves. so that -- you offer these generous terms. you are going to have the oils companies remember the kurdish reason is not a state. it doesn't have external sovereignty. it is a quasi state. they see -- where is the central government has had a history of let's say contention over the issue of iraqisoeverty and relations relations with
1:44 pm
international oil companies the kurdish region is welcoming them as a form of leverage a form of leverage against baghdad and means in which they hopefully can export the oil. the end of the day, the question remains, who will pay these contracts? we talk about the revenues, it's not 15%, the kurdish region gets 17% of the rocky budget as their annual budget. it was part of the federal agreement. so to give you an idea of how much benefit this is to the north, in 2003, this was 2.5 billion. in 2011, it was $11 -- $10.8 billion sent by baghdad to the kurdish north as the budget. so as part of the -- and so 95 -- it was 95 percent of the kurdish budget dependent upon baghdad. there's not a lot of extra revenue to be paying oil
1:45 pm
companies you must ask despite the high profit margins and how generous it is. at the end of the day the payment has to come from bag baghdad or some pocket money from somebody in the north. i don't know. it is an issue. and be been five years no one has been paid. there have been sportic payment and other the day there was another temple for some kind of deal. what you're likely to find over the next several years, i would say, is not the passage of the hydrocarbon law. it's not in anybody's favor but the sporadic side deals that lead to temporary payments until a larger deal can be made. you have land issues. and the oh now that has been emerging from this and it's become complicated is what to use the oil for or the gas. for export or domestic use in so as the kurdish region seeks the alternative export route it's not being paid and there are tensions with baghdad. you have a new tension which is
1:46 pm
not only are these contracts indisputed territories because the kurds regional one is with exxonmobil. there are nine other companies that have signed the contracts in the disputed territories in has been the digging in further with the an tag name and the sunni arabs, it's not kurds in baghdad, it's the relationship between overstep -- what ther. seption of iraq i can sovereignty means and who is threatening it. you have the issue of can the kurds want to export if you look at statements a year ago, you heard kurdish oil ministers saying we recognize that the state oil marketing ocean has the sole right to export. but now the public discourse is we kurds have the right to export. you have now even a different interpretation of that. and there has not been a contract signed between the kurdish region and turkey. there's been a lot of at the same statements and noise coming
1:47 pm
from the kurdish region they will create an independent pipeline. there is no private investor yet willing to make that risk of building a pipeline directly to turkey. there is pipelines being built right now. to the turkish border and i see the more likely scenario happening if people make a deal to connect to the existing iraq i can pipeline which has the capacity to build to export 1.6 million barrels but it is currently exporting about 400,000 to turkey. it would make no sense to build another line. i don't see any investors engaging in that which is the third point border security kk problems. ly get to the turkish role in this this. on the one hand, while it seems interesting and possible for turkey in the krg to futureically benefit?
1:48 pm
are other issues going on in the region geopolitical issues that are equally important that are threatening turkey's national security. one is at height of the pkk problem not only in southeast turkey as you may know pkk is based in northern iraq in the kurds region. a they have taken a third haven in the syria. which is on turkey's border. over the last couple of weeks you probably had some of the worst insurgency in southeast turkey with the pk. it's a tenuous situation and to talk about exporting oil with new pipelines in an area undergoing great instability is a bit of an overstep at the time. so turkey has to step back a bit, you starting to hear people say we have to pull back, you know, over empowering the kurds region is not turkey's interest. keeping a good ally was. if there was a pipeline, i don't
1:49 pm
see why turkey with the only resolved kurdish problem would want them an -- region in syria and kurds in turkey seeking their own region. so this is -- i see turkey as playing a clever game of trying to leverage the krg but the real market and the real importance still remains in baghdad. you start to see the pull back because of unresolved kurdish problem. the kurdish president cannot deliver the pkk to turkey. he cannot control the syrian kurdish problem. he needs to remain an envoy. it is very messy kurdish issue right now. impeding not only an alternative pipeline to syria but some of the potential hope for pipelines that the kurds are claiming they will build. now what are the i remember my indications and again, you have the uncertain syrian crisis. what are the implications? i can't go in the dotes right now of the kurdish-baghdad
1:50 pm
issues. if we can talk about this in the question and answers. what are the implications of the region nam states? there are two in mind. i want to focus on in the last two minutes is turkey and iran. as i indicated turkey has a key role here. it's playing itself between baghdad and [inaudible] turkey is deeply em beaded in the kurds region. with the aim of welcomerring a regional energy hub. they need to access cheep oil and gas product. it doesn't have the own insufficient energy support resources and it exports 60% of the gas from russia. turkey already has an pipeline infrastructure and it's close to the met train yab -- mediterranean ports. they have stakes, large stakes small private companies have stakes in the north with the turkish state company has four deals in the south. so there are significant investments in the south, with the state companies, and the
1:51 pm
smaller companies such as the biggest investors in the north and again, that's in northern iraq. but nonetheless, where turkey has the greatest interest aside from this what i find highly unrealistic independ pipeline discourse is to repair the existing pipeline. and this has been -- the existing iraqi-turkey pipeline it was built in the late 1970 started and finished as an alternativepipeline in case the straight of hormuz were to be shut and there has been this line and it's been in disrepair. it has never gotten up to the level it should have been. nonetheless, it's there and an alternative, if i, i adopt see the straight of hormuz being closed but iraq more so than these other gulf states 80% of the oil export goes through the
1:52 pm
strait of hormuz. there's an need to find the amounttive. turkey would play a positive role by improving and working through the northern corridor where iraqi oil including kurdish can be exported to european market. that's one -- probably a more likely scenario than the idea of this independent pipeline. and turkey is also seeking iraq i can gas. as many of you know there is talk of the project. it is dead. you will not see the iraqi gas coming out there is no deal. the deal has taken that those supplies. so but what are the political implications that it's emerged from the turkish energy hub interest in working directly with iraqi kurds and this sectarian sunni she politickings
1:53 pm
this tension or the exacerbation of relations with baghdad as turkish -- iraqi kurdish roleses have improved inspect some way you had a trying to play off iraq i iraqi kurds. some of the political issues have brought baghdad turkish relations to a low point. so whether you want to call this too, you know, heightened iraqi nationalism increased raring's nationalism which is not only the case but the middle east you have now a heightened sense from nonkurdish iraq i iraqis there has been a turkish overstep as well and backlash like recently the turkish commercial licenses have been canceled or suspended because of this interpretation that turkey is encouraging an independent. there's some tensions right now.
1:54 pm
the impact on iran is different. so turkey is in and out of the market. i see turkey trying to going to need baghdad in this. and will try to leverage the iraqi-kurds will need to cut a deal with baghdad from if wants to have legal framework. iran is different. unlike the gulf states and saudi arabia, who only look at largely look at iran politically but not as -- look iraq as a prison imof iran. not as a serious challenger. iran looking a iraq in a soil centric mentality. and looking at baghdad as a potential to surpass iranian petroleum exports. so if iraq becomes successful while iran follows tensions could emerge. the worst case scenario, again, i don't see it. still teheran could retal began against iraq by closing the staight of hormuz and as the international isolation sanction weigh on the iranian regime they
1:55 pm
could make it more difficult to realize the energy objective and can spoil energy development and global oil prices by closing the straight of hormuz. nonetheless, that would be a worse case scenario. all the more reason why iraq or baghdad needs to developing the pipeline in the north. iraq has a enormous potential i don't see 88 million barrels closer to 4 to 6 over the years. but the ultimate bottle neck would be the political issues between the kurdish region and baghdad. turkey is a key player an the relationship should be tapped through baghdad and again the development of the northern corridor is also an important alternative market for baghdad to expand its opportunity. i'll leave it at that. thank you. [applause]
1:56 pm
it's hard to be the closer. but first, i would like to say it's a great honor to speak at my al ma mater. it means a lot to me. thank you for inviting. and second, of course, to thank my colleagues for their presentations. i think mine will be climate tear. i'm going to stay away from the political issues as much. you heard that from denise. i'm going focus on the technical issues that challenge iraq including the kurt stan region. i have to say, i'm sorry while you were talking my name was up there the entire time. [laughter] >> i can blame it on you then. >> i know. where is the -- okay. where is the laser pointer?
1:57 pm
did we miss it? oh. there we go. someone took it. [laughter] that's okay. that's okay. in any case, i do have to go back because i do like his map. i wish i actually had worked on more maps, but . >> another map. this. >> that is another map. >> you go back three. >> you don't want to take your map. >> one more. >> yes. okay. first of all, this is an old map. and what you will see in one of the maps that i have -- [laughter] >> you cut it off. >> no. this is a lot of these pipelines in iraq no longer function. so i will be walking through what works, what doesn't and what cousin it mean as iraq wants to hit the 12 million barrels per day. why it can't and we'll go from there. and my colleagues already so nicely stated 80% of iraq's exports go through the south because they come out through here. so thigh are very concerned
1:58 pm
where their neighborhood iran which they have no love for ion. it's a nice love-hate relationship. they are concerned when iran threatens to close the straits they have to look for alternative routes. their connection to the iraq-saudi arabia pipeline is closed. it's been closed since they invaded kuwait. as denise mentioned the pipeline going through turkey. some of them aren't working. okay with that. we have to go through all of this. okay. so here, first, is iraqi oil production since 1997, and i apologize, you can't really see that down there. but this begins 1997 the beginning of the oil for food period taking us to 2012. this is a year to date average statistics produced by the ministry of oil on their website. only year missed is 2003 because with the innovation, that kind of throws the average off. what i want to show is you for the most part, with the
1:59 pm
exception of 2012, iraqi oil production has remained consistent. in fact, one could say quite flat. that has lead iraq to figure out what could they do? they, you know, were one of the first to nationalize their oil sector back in 1960. they limited the foreign companies to just the oil fields. until they fully nationalized in 1973. they achieved their height of production in 18979 which they averaged 23 minute 5 million brl day. what happened was a that is the iran-iraq war and the oil industry has suffered ever since then. it is actually a promising step and this is raised such excitement for them. which is why they clung to the 12 million per day when it occurred in the bid rounds. any case, you did hear that iraq
2:00 pm
has largest reserves in oil and gas. that was nicely covered. thank you. i will say that out of this production, out of the 3 million almost half of it is from [inaudible] the field that you pointed out is being one of the largest fields is just about 50% of their production. which as you also stated, is one being run by the bp consortium. so in iraq's eyes, if anything happens in the south, they have no money. if crude oil cannot be exported, they have no other alternative. the pipelines running to the north do not work. they have not worked since 2003. they cannot go through the insei or the iraq pipeline since the saudi arabias closed that in 2000. they have very limited options. i think we can go to here. which is why we should look at
2:01 pm
which pipelines and which do not. down here what you can see twhb is the insei pipeline. the iraq portion that comes down. that does not work. what you see here is here are most of the fields from the south that are producing the field is this over here. this pipeline here is what is left of the iraq strategic pipeline that would run the course of the country this way. but it only works up to just north of here and there is a feeder line that goes to the dora refinery in baghdad. this section here does not work. the iraq-syria pipeline, this section here does not work. the pipelines that go between baghdad and here do not work. and the pipeline from the field over here had is on the border with iran down to baghdad also does not work. so what you have is a -- system you have the south oil company
2:02 pm
with limited access to either export everything through the two terminals an now the single maoris or buoy in the water. they could send some baghdad. the problem being is you see these little gems here are pump stations, and if you don't have good pumping capacity you cannot send that much oil north. right now they're working on rehabilitates this line. they can't send that much through baghdad. everything must go through the persian gulf. for the north here within nothing here mentioned on iraq curd stan. this has been producing since 1927. it is iraq's oldest and obviously first field. it is divided in to three
2:03 pm
domes. most production here is from the babb and the southern most and middle dome. the right now is being operate bid the kurds. so there's potential for the regional government and the federal government to cause problems for each other in terms of production. just like professor seznec was saying with potential spill over from reservoirs. between iran. in any case, this field produces majority of the northern oil companies oil and that then comes down up and out. what is happening though is they are declining since the babba domes have been producing since as early as 1927, it's harder and harder to continue to produce oil. and there have been times when people that don't agree with the federal government would actually sabotage the pipelines.
2:04 pm
what that would do is they would fill were ordered to produce in. they were ordered to produce because they needed propane. they would produce the oil, strip out the gas and put the oil with the gas out back in to the ground. i should ask my science at the elliot school. i took agreology. it really did help me. [laughter] when the engineers talked to me i can act as the translatorrers. i enjoy that part. [laughter] so because the perm account is damaged it's harder to extracts oil from the field. it's like you're dpriing a can of soda. i usually use this analogy quite a bit. more you drink the less liquid in the can. more suction you need. if you put the liquid back in it
2:05 pm
becomes harder to do that. you're damaging the field. and basically the iraqis were doing that from 2003 to 2007. it is unclear what damage has been done to the kikuk field. now that you have the kurds producing from the dome it's unclear. how cousin it interact the at some levels the three reservoirs connect. what does it mean for the long-term future of kirkuk i wish i could say, i don't know. there are other fields that produce but basically what you're getting is maybe at most 5rbgs500,000 barrels a day which can go through the iraq fur key pipeline. they would like to see more oil flow through the port. iraq has a problem. nay need to work on reconnecting the pipelines or try to get a contractor to work in kirkuk but
2:06 pm
the political risk is extremely high if you're going work on the border between the regional and the federal government. any case, i have so focused on the north since both much you did a good job on that. i thought i would add my knowledge to compliment that. now we should focus on the south because that is the crown jewel of iraq and what is iraq trying to do? so they have 18 contract, the first bid round was in june of 2009. at first, they only had one company have a winning bid that was the exxon and exxon and the italian firm eni and the chinese firm issued bids later. they decided to come down and meet the iraq i can price. any case, with which as you can
2:07 pm
see, if they're only hitting 3 million now, let's see rumaila is producing 13. you're adding another million 500,000 to what iraq produced. it puts iraq in to 4 million to almost 4.5 million someday. just with that alone it is a success. it doesn't matter what happens to everybody else. it doesn't make the other companies feel good. if iraq had to only one field works they would be doing quite well. any case, let's get to the export infrastructure. so they have the oil terminal, which handleds about 1.7 million per day in exports. you have the smaller and more damaged from the iranians export terminal, which only at most was exporting maybe about 100,000 barrels per someday. not really a good alternative.
2:08 pm
so once you fill abbot, they cannot pick up the slack for this. which is why they went to hire several foreign companies to help them with the single point mooring. there is supposed to be fiving fiving with right now they only have two. the name plate capacity much single point buoys is supposed to be 900,000 barrels each. due to inadequate infrastructure onshore, those buoys cannot hit 900,000 barrels each. they are probably doing half that maybe a little bit more. i'm not exactly sure. i'm give you round numbers. what becomes here is a game for who can get their oil out through -- these two terminals or the buoys first. and bp has a step up above ahead of everyone because they had their contract first. they had more time to work through the bureaucracy and all of the other challenges and
2:09 pm
decision makes. so they primarily are looking at filling the pipeline. the others have to consider what will it take for them to get in as professor says knick mentioned, the water issue for west colonel that one and two. they are two-parts liewp oil in the second half. those two fields and other fields throughout the south are in huge needs of water. and that water is restated was for reinjection. becausely if you're going take the oil out something has to go in. so you a huge land problem and it probably be sinks. you won't like that. you need to put water in. you don't want to take water from the tying are a river. it's unfeasible to the iraqi government. okay. so that's what they're working on. yes, a deal it did fall through
2:10 pm
in which exxon was heading. the iraqis continue to go ahead nonetheless looking at the less of a big name contractor to do it. not to say it's a not a good company. they have a tender out. they are looking for basically design-build companies to come in and do it that. it will take time. what tee means is because they haven't figured out the question, all of the other field that need water have to wait. so they cannot raise production above a certain level. now, i don't have the data to tell you what each field could do. but it tells you that iraq will be constrained. which is why you hear from both government and industry sources, iraq will produce around 4 to 6 million barrels by day by 2020. i've heard some people say 7. million i've never heard anyone go above that. that becomes an issue for iraq.
2:11 pm
they promised 12 million. they are the euphoria of 12. million the press was there. the second saudi arabia that comes back to political issue. how do they talk with saudi arabia and the opec politics. it's not an opec discussion. it can be for another time. in any case, what the iraq i cans have to do is what can they legitimately produce and then figure out what do they need to do to get the oil out? how much money do they need to invest here, what do they need to reconnect. if they can't, what's the problem. what else can they do? that means they have have to have a political solution with saudi arabia. how likely is that? unclear. basically iraq is going have lots of tension. they have tension with iran because iran's production is declining, and their production is increasing. they have an internal, we heard the baghdad dispute that is a lot form of tension. that's political.
2:12 pm
but in terms of the oil, everything down here is technical. so many technical tensions. and you also have the government that is interested in we have the companies here this is going to bring in a lot of money. by the way, what is it going to do for us? and that becomes another source of tension for the baghdad government. so there has to be a lot of tough decisions. there has to be clear planning where will they go in the next five years? and they unfortunately, oil becomes a political question. because you have both the internal issues, you have the external issues, and they then have to work out and resolve those. and depending how they go, can definitely change what iraq really adds to the world's total oil output. nowlet talk about the curd stan reeblg. they are good at expressing themselves on how much they produce. if you look at the total of
2:13 pm
exports at their height of production and exports they were only 4% or less of iraq's total. that doesn't necessarily mean baghdad is going to notice. it requires that baghdad have to work out a political deal. in terms of investment, baghdad recognizes everything has to be done down here. this is the goo that laid the golden egg. if anything goes wrong here. iraq has a country has a huge financial problem. okay. i think the other issues that i'll cover, since a lot of it was already covered. i will just say they have to question who is going to finance this is if the iraqi government? is it through some sort of by own operate transfer process or one of the variance of those? how to protect that
2:14 pm
infrastructure, as i said there were attacks along the line. what is to prevent attacks down here? they have to look at that. the other issue is going to be once they reconnect this, how much of southern production is really going to go up north? there's becomes a marketing issue. if you want to sell more to asia, you somehow need to have more export viability going down here. but with the strait of hormuz issue. where do you go? jordan. that's the only other option. you can't go to saudi arabia. and the last issue i would say is investment in kirkuk. eventually somehow iraq is going to have to find a way how to get someone reverse the deline of kirkuk if they can't. you'll continue to see this will decline and the region will be the soul provider of oil in to the turkey pipeline if they
2:15 pm
these pipelines are not fixed. i think we'll answer it -- end it with that and go to the question and answer period. okay. >> thank you very much. [applause] i realize we are running a bit late with the presentations and normally i would have taken my twenty questions here and pose them for the panel. i won't because i think i much prefer you have an opportunity to pose your questions to the panel. what i would ask, i think we'll take maybe three before we have an answer. and from the panel a response. and what i would ask is that josh here has a microphone, when i call you, wait to begin to pose your question until he gets there with the microphone because we do have guests with us doing some programming for this evening. let's see, the questions?
2:16 pm
start here up here at the front. josh? if you would identify yourself. >> hi. sorry. my name -- first of all thank you for coming. my name is jeff i'm at the elliot school. and my question pertains to kind of something which both professors discussed regarding kurt stan. obviously professor natali how turkey is trying to balance ipts between baghdad and that's definitely an interesting how the saudis and iranians are perceiving kurdistan and the political balance between kurdistan and baghdad and how
2:17 pm
kurdistan and iraq. that is what my question pertains to. >> another question? >> here. in the back. hi. my name is kay walters. i'm also an elliot school alumni. my question is, so the it seems like the tensions between the krg and baghdad were getting worse. and do you think that is the case. also the recent agreement to pay part of the money for baghdad to pay part of the money to the krg and there was an armed group that some of mall the supporters were going to have in the krg and they said they weren't going to do that. it was on puk news. maybe it's not a big deal. anyway, do you think that the payments are a sign of tensions
2:18 pm
lessons or is it not just a big deal and not important? >> thank you. another question? up hire in the front. -- up here if the front. >> hi. a question from matt. i'm wondering what are we talking about in terms of amount of money and time to repair those pipelines? and in the case of the one that goes to saudi, what would it take for to get the saudis to agree to reopen it and also is that a pipeline that actually would work fine if the saudis would only grow to turn it back on? thanks. >> good question. that was one of my twenty. thank you. good. i was going turn it over to the panel. i'll do one thing of turkey and the kurdish region and what they were doing that wow don't -- [inaudible] and both denise talked about.
2:19 pm
it strikes me as counter intuitive. the turks who look upon the kurdish question completely and totally whether or not there will be a defendant internally would ever go down a road which they would allow the kurds to get something like kirkuk give them to a ability the to declare the visits. but then one of you i think denise it was you that talked about the amount of money the central budget gives the budget to the krg. that i have to find way to replace it. anyway, over to you all. [inaudible] to answer the iran [inaudible] the relationship between iran it's a great question. it's a very different from the way that turkey views it. the relationship between iran and let's say the iraqi kids kurds is long standing one. not only because there's a shared border. iran has it's own kurdish
2:20 pm
population to worry about. because 250,000 kurds lived in iran for twenty years after the 1975 revolution and they still have these ties back and forth. nonetheless, iran has the own very important kurdish problem. like the krg done with turkey. the in exchain for keeping an open border. they will move out iranian kurdish nationalists or disdense in the camps. it's been going on for about twenty years. puk has a relationship with iran. they need the border open. and there's trade and whatnot. tomorrow you will have [inaudible] have a visit to iran. because what's happening in the region now is the kurds are pretty much aware behalf turkey is up to and what tensions are emerging. and they're asking themselves what do we stay neutral? the tensions the relationship between turkey is now enhancing
2:21 pm
the fragmentation and taliban and puk are moving closer toward iran and you see it played out internally within the curd stan region. they will not permit, i don't see them saying anything about a independent kurdstan. they need the border open. >> it's an interesting point. on the southeast side, just to quickly -- i think traditionally the saudi arabias were told to e pose any kurdish independents. but i think this is changing. the whole war by proxy which i mentioned earlier between the saudi and the iranians would be perhaps likely to encourage more inindepends from the kurtish
2:22 pm
territory. to weaken iraq and therefore to weaken iran. and, you know, we were talking about the suenism and the kurds could be part of that. in that sense, that could be, i think they might be a switch today in the sue i did. on thepipeline that will pipeline will never reopen to saudi arabia. the saudis already transform the pipeline was built i was living in -- was built between the field down the saudi arabia and to, you know, west ward route directly to [inaudible] most of the portion that is going west is not being used by the saudis. the pipeline is not -- there's no capacity. and sort of majorrize -- nationalize it. not on those terms, of course.
2:23 pm
[laughter] >> i want to answer the woman's question about the conflict. you ask the conflict getting worse over the recent agreement. let's start with the conflict. i always look at google what goes on in the public knees in washington. it's amusing. it's amusing what can come out and what can be produced and what's happening on the ground. one thing is, you know, the relationship between the kurdistan didn't start when people started focusing on oil. the between the kurds and baghdad has not been entirely conflict yule it flex waited between conflict and many periods of negotiation. so what we're seeing now, is nothing different, nothing different than what happened over the last 80 years which is periods in noshes with the central government is weak, the kurds try to extend the an an ton my. when they cool son date power
2:24 pm
they try to bring the kurds back. you see the periods in 2003 of brinkmanship when the american military was going pull out everyone was screaming there was going to be a civil war in kirkurk. that didn't happen either. i can place bet, i don't see an all-out armed conflict. it's in nobody's interest particularly the krg with the millions of dollars they spent on lobbying. stlaip the oil companies here. they can't have conflict. they're not going to fight over kirkuk. i see a continue situation of the status quo because of benefits quasi states stay in political limbo. there's a lot of benefits from that. the recent agreement, again the media is wonderful particularly coming out of the certain website. this was nothing different than
2:25 pm
the agreement that was -- not that much different from last year which is another side deal to prevent all-out conflict. to me it shows there was a willingness to move away from brinkmanship to have some kind of side deal. there's no agreement to the production-sharing contract. it's a mowns in which they could settle some current debts, look at which companies are involved. there's no company after 2011 that are going to be paid which means baghdad is not straying for the former policy. important key players whichly not name, were not there. it has to be approve bid the parliament at the end of the krg has to submit the papers for auditing and to be transparent. it's going to be the biggest challenge. if you want to be paid, so you to show what your contracts are about. i see as a stop and go. you may see a first payment. i adopt see the key political issues i discussed before. they haven't been put out on the
2:26 pm
table. i'll leave it to matt. >> i have the easy question. so and he answered half of it. i will follow up on that. basically on the pipeline, by stating what i said is it was a potential route that the iraq i cans still mention. obviously, yes, the saw cities have filled it to capacity. there would have to be a new negotiation. basically if iraq is 0 focused on asian market. it's going to have two real option goes to. which is through saudi arabia, which would have to be a political discussion to take place, or through jordan. which is another option, but that, you know, obviously increases the transportation cost and all of these other things. it's a potential. in terms of amounts of money and
2:27 pm
time to fix this strategic pipeline, the iraq iraqis had a couple of studies that were being done. all i know it will probably take several billion dollars and a few years to do in a normal country. in iraq it may take longer. there are no quick fixes to reunite the oil infrastructure between the north and the south. >> we can take a couple of more questions. do i see any hands? way in the back. hi i'm an aloom. the question for matt. you alluded to the end the presentation the price iraq needs for their domestic programs and what production volume cothey need to hit and the rest you talked about not meeting their target. what does it mean for domestic policies? >> take one more question and we'll let the panel respond.
2:28 pm
[inaudible] jim black, retired foreign service office a few years time in the gulf. matt, this is a question for you, you mentioned using desal nateed water to provide the water pressure for the southern iraq i can oil fields. it is an enormously expensive way to do it. it also requires some form of -- presumely natural gas which iraq isn't developing. how can they do this? >> all right. i'll take advantage of being the moderator to ask the third question to the group. one of the things that you hear discussed quite a lot about gulf production, is the increase in gulf state consumption. could you comment adjust little bit about as we look ahead at
2:29 pm
the industrialization in the region and the demand domesticically for their own oil production. what does it peen -- mean for the ability of the country to supply a global market? >> sure. i was thinking how i was going to respond to both questions. if iraq's not able to hit the target is not necessarily a bad thing as i said with the production alone. they their oil production would be well over 4 million barrels a day. what it means is renegotiation. renegotiation could be good or bad for both the companies or the iraq i iys as was stated the terms are pretty tight for the company. they can earn money but obviously not as good in other
2:30 pm
places. there ha has to be a very frank discussion that give and take so to speak but yes, the production figures are going have to come down and i don't think iraqis are necessarily going have a problem with that. as i alluded to before there's the issue of opec which is not the subject of this what happens when iraq gets back to the goes quo quota? what is the quota. that will have have an complicate. that's an political issue. what price does iraq need? well, you know, oil prices right now are very good for iraq. in fact they just issued for the 2013 budget they averaged that iraq oil would get $90 a barrel. which at their current exex rate it's a large chunk of change and the question becomes with the budgetary needs how much can
2:31 pm
they devote to oil infrastructure? and that becomes a very tough question because there are so many needs in iraq. .. yes, it would be very expensive. i believe there were news reports stating it would be once again in the billion dollar -- several billion dollars. i think it was under ten. but we would have to check the news sources for that. yes, that means they have to do
2:32 pm
something about electric power. that is why the shale gas deal that was approved really has to begin to take shape, and again, these are issues how quickly it is we to be done and how quickly its consortium is going to get the gas process, deliver the gas. these are very hard questions and it's not easy to read it takes a lot of coordination because we have to coordinate between the iraqi and the companies, so it will be very slow going. that shows why the government and industry analysts only predict four to 6 million per day range by 2020 because there are so many tough questions. it's not to say that iraq will not only achieve a greater production level than that it's going to take more money. >> i want to make a point about the production levels.
2:33 pm
what happens if they don't meet the targets. at the north and the south and to touch upon the north the same thing. there is not going to be much problem at least for the next several years because the kurdistan region is in its merger and acquisition phrase so all the small companies that you've got a medium once and the kurdistan region once more so get out the small companies and bring in the majors which you will likely see because they haven't been paid and they can no longer sustain or you need to bring larger partners so with the kurdistan region -- this could go on because you get more sign-on bonuses for every company you bring in. the time will come. the time will come and as time goes on the payments will have to be made for these companies and that's where not meeting the production level will hurt the government but i will say this is not an immediate issue.
2:34 pm
>> perhaps i will go directly to your question. there has been a lot of talking particularly in saudi arabia where they are increasingly using crude oil to make electricity, and the entire gulf has been increasing by 8% per year, and the saudis are short of natural gas, the have natural gas but they are short on that and there were reports by 2015 the would be using 40% of using crude oil for producing electricity and there was a bit misleading in the article in which 40% for their own and not just electricity and the use of gasoline and everything in our takeout 4 million barrels a day of consumption. the reality is inside the already using 2 million barrels a day now as we speak so it will
2:35 pm
only increase the sales pitch to million it's a big chunk of oil. if you ask them that question they will say well, now we have a dry field which we have put on line so the dependence on the crude oil should be kind but it's very important. the visit to the two biggest project to have now in saudi arabia and the big industrial zone for phosphates and aluminum is brenda run and electricity based on crude which is ridiculous but they're hoping to replace that with gas and they tell you the solution is to have nuclear plants and we do have in saudi arabia for the opportunity and hope to build 20 nuclear plants that's going to take 20 years. the if already ordered for plans, and one of them, the
2:36 pm
first one is being billed as we have seen by the koreans. so that will improve the source of electricity and probably decrease a little bit for crude oil locally. but it is a big problem. they really have not resolve that issue. there would be more and more use, and in a way the saudis are not totally unhappy that iraq is coming down the stream, because there is less pressure on them on the west in particular to produce crude oil because they want to keep the reserve for the long term. so, seeing iraq producing more isn't totally bad. the jordanian pipeline is an interesting twist though because i don't know what the saudi policy is on that. but considering what they have done to the qatari is with a gas pipeline, and my guess is that they will somehow tell the iraqis or tell the jordanians
2:37 pm
that it is not a good idea to drill the pipeline for jordan's of the can control the production. but that is just a guess. >> thank if you all very much. [applause] wisconsin has become of the most interesting senate race is in the country. you have a state that has been politically rolling for over two years and the presidential race
2:38 pm
for a while it seems very competitive. president obama saenz to be ahead by about five points, and some of that has helped change the trajectory of the race. earlier this month tommy thompson seems to have the momentum and at this point his democratic rival tammy baldwin seems to be within the margin of error or a little ahead. >> why is that? >> mauney best guess is the bald when serge if you want to call it that corresponds with what president one is getting from governor romney. back in august it seems and still is governor thompson was perceived as the best republican nominee to the if he had a very competitive primary. paul ryan nominated for the vp commesso it seems like suddenly wisconsin is back in the
2:39 pm
republican column. >> and abby livingston is denied the and only debate or is there a series? >> i don't know that off the top of my head but it is going to be an interesting evening because governor thompson is a statewide brand. he is known not as governor thompson, but tommie and he will be speaking as a liberal. that is too liberal for nancy pelosi, and she is one of several members of congress for a single district statewide so she is trying to define herself in a positive way and he is going to define her negatively. >> that debate will be live from wisconsin. we will broadcast it live from c-span 9 p.m. eastern time. tommy thompson and tammy baldwin.
2:40 pm
i was always shocked as i think anybody that spends a lot of time on campaigns. most of the people i talked to couldn't explain why they did anything that they were doing. like how do you know that, why do you do that? and at some point they've always done it that way or because they had some sort of rules that it wasn't really based on any research. and so, i sort of rough around the campaign with a degree of skepticism on the practices that were taking place and the way people were spending time and devoting resources and as i learned about people ha starting in academia doing these randomized controlled trials that were then being adopted by people in the political world and learn more about all of these data targeting basically revolutionized campaigns in the last decade this was a major generational shift and in addition to all of these sort of new forms of research changing the way the campaigns operate that you have this kind of
2:41 pm
cultural tension between the old practices the way the campaign obra read into the empirical movement. my opponent and his running mate are big believers in top down economics. if we spend another $5 trillion on tax cuts that favor the very wealthiest -- [booing] >> don't boo, vote. >> there is one thing he didn't do in his first three years he said he is going to do which is to raise taxes. and is their anybody that thinks that raising taxes will help the
2:42 pm
economy? >> no. >> his plan is to continue what he did before. the status quo has not worked. we can't afford four more years of barack obama. we are not going to have four more years of barack obama.
2:43 pm
>> earlier this week afghanistan president hamid karzai spoke of the united nations general assembly. he talked about the progress of the afghan security forces and the continued violence in syria. this is 15 minutes. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, as we speak today, the world is shaken by the fanatics who have committed acts against the face of over 1.5 billion muslims. we strongly condemn these
2:44 pm
offensive facts whether it is the production of the film, the publication of cartoons or indeed any other act of unsold and provocation. such acts can never be justified in a speech of expression. equally they cannot give a reason for the protest to be used to fight violence with terrible losses of innocent lives is a matter of concern the world remains by the occurrence of the violence, he tried and injustice. in particular, the phobia is a phenomena has coexistence among the cultures and civilizations. i call upon the leaders in the west, will both politicians and the media to confront the
2:45 pm
struggle in all but many forms and manifestations. it is incumbent upon us all to advance the cause of dialogue and cooperation despite the sources of provision and hatred and to fulfill the promise of a better and brighter future for the coming generations. we must work to defeat the protagonist of the conflict of civilizations and support the voices in the understanding. mr. president, my country afghanistan has the benefits of the multilateral corporations and international solidarity. it was a little over a decade ago when many countries from across the world joined the afghan people in our struggle for peace and against the forces
2:46 pm
of terrorism. at that time, afghanistan was a country decimated amol regards. for decades we have suffered and noticed the violence, deprivation and for intervention long before it struck the world has a common security threat, afghans were the victims of the atrocity of the terrorist networks from different parts of the world that have made afghanistan their haven. looking back ten years ago, afghanistan has transformed remarkably, democracy has taken root and they are accessible to the population in all corners of the country millions of students come on boys and girls are enrolled in primary and higher education. our achievements have not come about easily though. the aspirations of the afghan people security and peace are
2:47 pm
yet to be realized. as the world's fight continues unabated, the afghan people continue to pay the biggest price and the states in both life and treasure. tourism is not searching and the afghans a levy of town. it never was. exists beyond afghanistan's borders. therefore, while the international community the securities being safeguarded for the threat of terrorism, the people of afghanistan must know them to be made to pay the price and and/or the price of the war. it is a sacrifice of the afghan people and it is indifferent to the sacrifice of the afghan people and the precious lives lost from the international community that the campaign against terrorism be taken to the sources of terrorism and must be resolved.
2:48 pm
today in afghanistan we pursue the cause of peace and end to violence as a matter of great urgency. this means the afghan people are convinced that of the terry everett alone is not and a liquid strategy to bring security with initiatives for the peace and reconciliation process which aims to bring all elements of the armed opposition to peaceful lives in our country. last year the it tenders to the u.n. general assembly was cut short by the tragic assassination of the professor then chairman of the high peace council. his life was taken by a terrorist who posed as a emmerson recommitting and by doing so was a serious blow. however, fortunately, the late
2:49 pm
professor stepped up to take the share of the highest council is part of the afghan delegation and present in the assembly today. i have repeated often times an hour hand of peace and reconciliation extended not only to the taliban, but also all other armed opposition groups that wish to return to the dignified, peaceful and independent lives in their own homeland. what we ask of them in return is simple. violence cutting ties with terrorist networks reserving the valuable gains of the past decade and respecting the constitution of afghanistan to help facilitate the peace process, i ask the united nations security council to extend its full support to our efforts. in particular, i urge the taliban sanctions security to
2:50 pm
take more active measures towards the listing of the taliban leaders to facilitate the direct negotiations. in pursuing the path of peace, we remain hopeful for the critical role that our neighbor and islamic republic of pakistan has to play. over the recent years, we have engaged our brothers and dagestan and a close dialogue in support of the afghan peace process. it is a dialogue that we believe it is critical for the security and the wide region and beyond. we are deeply committed to pakistan but on the way of the challenges that mystery in our efforts of building trust and confidence. such incidents of the recent sharing of the afghan villages undermine the efforts by both
2:51 pm
governments to work together in the interest of the common security and prosperity. mr. president, in the past two years from our national sovereignty has been to have afghanistans own security forces assume full for the security of the country and our people. the process will be completed by the next 2013 and the nato forces will be drawn from the country by the end of 2014. apart from advancing the transition and pursuing the peace process, the path here has been one of significant process for consolidating the international commitment and partnership. in chicago last week we achieved a long-term commitment of nato and other countries for the training, equipping and ensuring the sustainability of afghanistan's national security forces in total this past july
2:52 pm
the international community reaffirmed its strong commitment to afghanistan, social and economic development during the transformation decade for which we are very, very grateful. it is adapted in tokyo since in place for low results oriented a partnership and cooperation we welcome the international community readiness to align our strategies we have reiterated or determination to improve governance and to cooperate with our international partners to without the council of corruption whether it is in the afghan government or the international aid system. it's tied to the region that surrounds it such as terrorism
2:53 pm
and extremism and the opportunities we must grow and prosper together. in this context the process presents a new agenda for security. confidence-building and cooperation across the region of afghanistan is the center. we will stand no efforts to build a strong and lasting relations with our neighbors near and extended. mr. president, turning to the international arena, afghanistan has used the situation and syria with much concerned. the brothers and sisters have lost their lives due to an escalating cycle of violence. we welcome the appointment of the new joint arab league his excellency. we know him very well. his reflection of afghanistan he
2:54 pm
brings with him vast experience and a unique ability to the task before him. and here i ask upon the people of syria that we afghans have experienced violence ourselves and we know what it takes to rebuild the country. i hope very much on behalf of the afghan people that the syrians will sit together as soon as possible and bring no more violence that will be not easy to repair. the continuing slide of the palestinian people has immediate source of distress for afghanistan in the rest of the international community. the people have suffered immensely for far too long. we remain in support of the realization of the rights of our brothers and sisters including the right to an independent palestinian state. we ask for d-nd and realizing the just aspirations of the people of palestine.
2:55 pm
ladies and gentlemen, the u.n. reform remains an important agenda at the international table. since its inception in 1945 the united nations has exercised the key role in promoting a safer and more secure world improving the lives of citizens worldwide and safeguarding and promoting human lives. nevertheless in view of the ever-changing world we cannot negate the fact that this organization is in dire need of a comprehensive reform to better reflect the new challenges and the realities of our time. the reform of the united nations security council is an issue long overdue with the reform council that is more inclusive, representative and transparent and remains a priority and we welcome the progress within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations. thank you very much. [applause]
2:56 pm
now more from the u.n. general assembly with remarks from british prime minister david cameron. he talked about the recent london olympics games and the elections in the spring. >> his excelencia, the honorable david cameron and invite him to address the assembly. >> thank you, mr. presidency. a distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. i am proud that this year britain welcomed the world to the olympic and paralympic games and put on a great display showing that while we may only have the 22nd largest population in the world, we can roll out one of the warmest welcome some world. and i am honored too that in this coming year i've been asked to co-chair the high-level panel
2:57 pm
to build on one of the united nations greatest achievements with a millennium development goal. britain takes this work very seriously, and i am convinced that we need to focus more than ever on the building blocks that take countries and people from poverty to prosperity. by these building blocks and in the absence of conflict and corruption, the presence of property rights and the rule of law we should never forget that for many in the world the closest relatives of poverty is injustice. development has never been just about eight or money. but i'm proud that britain is a country that keeps its promises to the poorest in the world. mr. president, a year ago i stood here and argued that the arab spurring represented an unprecedented opportunity to advance peace, prosperity and security. some believe the arab spurring
2:58 pm
is in danger of becoming an arab winter and they are on the streets to syria's descent into a civil bloody war, the frustration of the lack of economic progress and the emergence of the newly elected islamist government across the region. but i believe these people are in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion. today is not the time to turn backed but to keep the faith and double our support for the open society and for people's demand for our job and a voice. yes, the path is challenging. but democracy is not and never has been about simply holding an election to be added is not one person, one vote once. democracy is about to start pushing the building blocks of true democracy. the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law with a much already prepared to defend the rights of minorities, the freedom of the media, a
2:59 pm
proper place for the army and society, and the development of the effective state institutions, political parties and the civil society. i am not my even believing that democracy alone has some magical healing power. i am a liberal conservative, not in neoconservative. i respect the different histories and traditions that each country has. i welcome steps taken in countries where reform is happening with the consent of the people. i know every country takes its own path and progress will sometimes be slow. some countries have achieved stability and success based on traditions and consent. others have decades of which the institutions of the civil society would deliberately destroyed. political parties stand. free media abolished. the rule of law twisted for the benefit of the few. and we cannot expect the damage of decades to be put right in a matter of months.
3:00 pm
but the drive for opportunity for justice, for the block, and the hunger for a job and of wastes are not responsible for the problems in the region. in fact, quite the opposite. the building blocks of democracy an affair economies and open societies are part of the solution, not part of the problem. and we in the united nations must step up our efforts to support the people in the country's as they build their own space future. let me take the arguments in term. a first of all there are those that say they're fed into little progress that the arab spring has produced tangible improvements in people's lives. this isn't right. look at libya since the fall of gaddafi we've created a new congress and now plans to integrate groups into the national police and army. none of this is to ignore the huge and so bring challenges that remain. the murder of the ambassador
3:01 pm
chris stevens was a despicable act of terrorism. but the right responses to finish the work that chris stevens gave his life to and that is what the vast majority of libyans want, too. we saw that in ben zazi last weekend as they took to the streets refusing to allow extremists to hijack their chance for dhaka see. the arab spring has brought progress in egypt with of the democratically elected president as civilian control over the military. in yemen and tunisia where the elections support the government to power and in morocco where there is a new constitution and a prime minister appointed on the basis of the popular vote for the first time. and even further appealed somalia has also taken the first step forward by electing a new president. so there has been progress, and none of it would have come about without people standing up last year and demanding change or
3:02 pm
without this united nations having the courage to respond to the cries. second there's the argument that the removal of dictators started to unleash a new wave of violence, extremism and instability. some argue that in a volatile region only an authoritarian strongman kim and the stability and security or some argue that recent events proved that a democracy in the middle east brings terrorism, not security, and sectarian conflict, not peace. again i feel we should reject this argument pitted i have no illusion about the danger of the political transition off exploited by violent extremists. i'm an understand the importance of protecting people and defending national security and britain is determined to work with our allies to do this. but open societies are not the problem. the fact is that for decades to
3:03 pm
many were prepared to tolerate a dictators like gaddafi and also on the basis that they would keep their people safe at home and promote stability in the region and the wider world. but in fact, neither of these things was true. not only with the dictators repressing their people, ruling by control cannot consent, plundering the national wealth and denying people the basic rights and freedoms overseas as well. they made the region more dangerous, not less. more dangerous because these regimes dealt with frustration at home by putting a finger against their neighbors, against the west, against israel and more dangerous, too because people denied the job and the voice given no alternative but a dead-end choice between the dictatorship or extremism. what was heartening about the event of the square was that the egyptian people found their voice and rejected the choice to
3:04 pm
read the held the consent from the government that had lost all of the legitimacy and chose instead the road to a more open and fair society. this road is not easy but it is the right one and i believe it will make countries safer in the end. there are those who say that whatever it may have been achieved elsewhere in syria, the arab spurring has unleashed a for text of sectarian violence and hatred with the potential to destroy the region. syria does present some profound challenges but those that will get syria today and claimed the arab spring have got it the wrong way around. you cannot blame the people for the behavior of a brutal dictator. the responsibility lies with a brutal dictator himself. he is inflaming the sectarian tensions just as his father did as far back as the slaughter 50 years ago.
3:05 pm
and not only in syria. al asad has completed with those in iran to set on dragging the region to a wider conflict. the only way out is to move forward towards political transitions and not to give up because of freedom. the future for syria is a future without al asad. it has to be based on mutual consent as was clearly agreed in geneva in june but if anybody had any doubts about the holes that he has afflicted on his people, just look at the evidence published this week by save the children. schools used as torture centers, children used for target practice. a 16-year-old syrian detained in a police station said this. i have seen children slaughtered. no, i do not think i will ever be okay again. if there was even 1% of humanity
3:06 pm
in the world, this would not happen. the blood of these children is a terrible stain on the united nations command in particular on those who failed to stand up to these atrocities, and in some cases a did and abetted the regime of terror. if the united nations is to have any value in the 21st century, we must now join together to support a rapid political transition. and at the same time, no conscience can turn a deaf ear to the voices of suffering. secure the council members of a particular responsibility to support the u.n. appealed to syria. now britain already the third biggest donor is announcing a further $12 million of humanitarian support including new support for unicef work helping syrian children. and we look to our international partners to do more as well. of course the arab spring hasn't
3:07 pm
removed overnight to the profound economic challenges these countries face. to many countries face of falling investment, rising food prices and bigger trade deficits. but it's completely wrong to suggest that the arab spurring has created these problems. it's a challenging time for the world economy as a whole and there won't be a transformation overnight because far from being successful, open market-based economies by the vested interests, corruption and institutions, and if you like created a double problem not just fragile economies but people were told their experience free enterprise markets what that experience nothing of the sort so we must help these countries unwind the legacy of endemic corruption. another three expenditure they can't afford. natural resources unfairly
3:08 pm
exploited and they suffered under for too long. while i'm on the subject of the stolen essence, we also have a responsibility to help these countries get back the stolen assets that are rightfully theirs just as we returned billions of dollars of assets to libya. it's not good enough the egyptian people continue to be denied these assets long after mubarak is gone and i'm announcing a british task force to work with the government to gather evidence to trace assets to work to change the law and pursue the cases that will return the stolen money to its rightful owners the egyptian people. the most challenging of all for the western countries like mine is the argument that elections have simply opened the door to the party whose values are incompatible truly open societies. mauney response to this is clear.
3:09 pm
we should respect the outcome of the elections but we should not compromise on our definition of what makes an open society. we should judge them by what they do, and the test is this. a trust the rights of citizenship to the country men and women who do not share your specific political view. do you accept unlike the dictators that you have replaced you should never pervert the space process to hold on to power if you lose the consent of the people that you serve. will they live up to your commitment to the rule of law for all citizens to defend the rights of christians and minorities and to allow women a full role in society and economy and in politics because the truth is this. you cannot build a strong economies. you can't build open societies. you cannot have inclusive political systems if you walk out women. the eyes of the world today may be on the brothers, but the future is as much in the hands
3:10 pm
of their mothers and sisters and daughters holding them to account demeans that the attempt to undermine the stability of other countries or if they encourage terrorism instead of peace if they brought conflict instead of partnership, we will oppose them. that is why iran will continue to face the full source of sanctions and scrutiny until that gives up its ambition to spread in a clear shot across the world and why we shouldn't waiver from the insistence that hamas give up violence and they must not be allowed to dictate the way forward. palestinians should have the chance to fulfill the same aspirations for the job and voice as others in the region. and we support the right to have a stake in the home and the israelis should be able to fulfil their aspirations to live in peace and security with their neighbors to the use of course
3:11 pm
there are challenges working with the governments that have different views and cultural traditions. but there is a fundamental difference between israel and extremism. islam is a great religion peacefully over a billion people in our world. it's the most extremism is a warped political ideology supported by the minority that seeks to hijack this great religion to gain respectability for the violent objectives. it is vital that we make this distinction. in turkey we see the government with fruits and islamic values but one with democratic politics and open economy and responsible attitude to supporting change in libya and syria and elsewhere in the region. i profoundly believe that the same part is open to egypt to nisha and their neighbors and we must help them take it. democracy in islam can flourish alongside one another. so let us judge governments not by their religion, but how they
3:12 pm
act and what they do and let us in the region in a space government in egypt and tunisia said their success can strengthen democracy, not undermine it. mr. president, there is no doubt that we are in the midst of profound change and that many uncertainties lie ahead. the building blocks of democracy, the ferry economy and open societies are part of the solution, not a problem. indeed nothing in the last year has changed my fundamental conviction. the arab spring represents a precious opportunity for the people to realize the respirations for a job, voice and state and their future coming and we in this united nations must do everything we can to support them. thank. the tunisian president also spoke at the united nations general assembly where he talked about the country's revolution which led to the overthrow of the government did to the show
3:13 pm
was the first country to stage anti-government demonstrations in what later became known as the arab spring. this is 15 minutes. >> mr. president, general, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. i should like to start by returning to the friend of the republic of serbia and to you minister was my most congratulations upon your election to the presidency of the session of the general assembly. i would also like to congratulate the president of the previous session as well as mr. ban ki mon for the efforts undertaken in favor of achieving
3:14 pm
the stability, peace and security and development throughout the world and i would like to express to you on behalf of my people the congratulations of my people. those people have through its revolution on september, 2010 entered the fraternity of the free and space people. and i would like to voice our view regarding the major issues facing the world today. today we are witnessing the great evil which few groups are capable of and which leads to disorder through the media and represents the phenomena between the psychological social
3:15 pm
societies which exacerbates the extremism. these are to be addressed very seriously. things don't just happen in a vacuum. they are the result of the extremist statements and policies of the right which have led to human carnage claiming millions of lives. indonesia -- in tunisia we have to work under the aspirations to become operations to establish peace for all mankind and avoid confrontation between the civilizations. our access to this forum are a free and space people that came
3:16 pm
at a high cost. tens of thousands of political prisoners were tortured when they paid the price of the sand during the revolution of the 300 citizens killed, 2,000 were injured following the revolution to nisha continues to move forward. we are faced by many economic problems, difficult ones resulting from the regime which lasted for over two decades and promulgated corruption, fraud and repression. but this is nothing when compared to the price paid by our brothers and libya as well as the 25,000 killed, tens of thousands injured the destruction of the infrastructure of the country. all of this will forever marked
3:17 pm
the syrian people and the impact the future of these people for decades to come to a very high price all of us should remember which hampers the building of an international system which will impact those political systems which threatened the freedom of people so the republic which is just emerged from dictatorship which is well aware on the dictatorship of my country that we consider that dictatorship is a disease threatening peace and security as well as a prosperity of people and only the freedom of people in a given country.
3:18 pm
now it gives rise to hatred and violence among people. europe was on the unknown place and stability since the fall of the nazi dictatorship. tools have been developed to ensure it was eliminated in the 20th century. this is something which would have seen pure fiction to the doctors and medical professionals of the plant century. we've required political maturity an awareness and dictatorship is a serious threat and billions on a plan that the
3:19 pm
nation deserves a legal arsenal which can serve to restore peace among people. we and the united nations declared the dictatorship is social and political and needs to be eliminated. it means to be eliminated and combine all people throughout the world to implement an ambitious program and in the same way in which we got rid of polio and smallpox. the creation of the icc demonstrates we are on the historic path and a journey which hasn't come to an end yet. the icc has a further step in the dictatorship and only tackles crime after there being committed. what we require our mechanisms to prevent dictatorship from
3:20 pm
taking root. contemporary dictatorships are based on the use of excessive force and they give themselves false legality by organizing fraudulent elections and the the u.s. democracy to undermine democracy itself. which is something that happened in tunisia in 1999 or 2004 and 2,009. to remain in power forever for the election of 2014 he wrote the constitution every time he reimposed the status quo because he knew the brenau internal or domestic mechanisms for which could sanction the activity.
3:21 pm
through the activities the space opposition could not beat the legal mechanisms. it was impossible for the opposition to turn to the international constitutional court's. although it was normal to see the absence is certainly wasn't normal that such a mechanism should be absent within the united nations because you are in charge of the declaration of human rights to the charter and the great many other international conventions by the resolutions could be deemed to
3:22 pm
be mankind charter and the only thing missing is the implementation for those in the public wish to make a proposal for the creation of an international constitutional court one similar to the icc courts which could be seized either to denounce the constitution or the legal charters or the elections. this court would consider a number of issues to rule on the legality or the ll devotee of elections which are not in line with of the united nations said the charter for all systems and all space systems would be faced
3:23 pm
with a great to be of being recognized by the tribunal. this mechanism must also make the necessary recommendations and provide the necessary advice to all of those that request it. this mechanism would be a weapon against any, any tyrannical regime and contribute to the regime because these courts will strengthen the role of savitt resistance because otherwise the only choice is to lived under oppression or alternatively turn to violence. we all know just how expensive that can be. tunisia indicates to ensure that the succeeding generations a
3:24 pm
sustainable world, one living in peace to douse the flames of war in afghanistan, congo, sudan, the middle east tunisia requests rapid innovation to help save the syrian people to the departure of the regime for the deployment of the peace force to engage the transition and to create a space state which could be pluralistic and live in peace. tunisia wishes support for the palestinian people and release the prisoners across the creation of the palestinian state against women and children
3:25 pm
announce the fanaticism for the anti-semitism, the islamophobia and the tolerance of all religious minorities to exercise their faith as well as to reduce between the rich and poor to tunisia but those are the needs to free them at least from the nuclear weapons to join the realistic tolerant civilians as ladies to tunisia as the country of the peaceful space resolution while tunisia is the general assembly to of article 22 of the
3:26 pm
charter which has the necessary institutions to the creation of the international constitutional court's to include on the agenda of the general assembly during its session in which i should of this proposal would enjoy the support for the space states as well as the international community which has played such an important role in the creation of the icc and we hope the same would be done to ensure the international constitutional court would become a part of a comprehensive system that would enable our people and succeeding generations to avoid discourage which has cost us dearly. thank you.
3:27 pm
the reason i write it is simply because it is unbiased. arguably that is the biggest reason. i'm a firm believer that the gason and video archives areg one of the most historical archives there are. i watch the washington journal, the house of representative proceedings and c-span2
3:28 pm
september you live and 2001 is a day that changed my life forever. it changed america's life. i'm going to go through a corporate presentation which is going to outline the account, the historical account on the attack that has transpired since that day. it gets pretty intense. a lot of things happen quickly. i'm going to do my best not to ramble on or go to fast. i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room and you'll get a sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain the national command authority as a nation of 300 million americans attacked by 19 al qaeda
3:29 pm
terrorists. up next if the duralast society holds a discussion on the upcoming supreme court term which starts next week. it's said to include cases examining permanent action of universities, human rights abuses overseas, privacy issues and also pending but not yet added to the agenda the challenge to california's proposition law to advance the marriage this is not an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. on behalf of the federal
3:30 pm
society, welcome to our september luncheon. today's event is sponsored by the societies practice groups, the d.c. lawyers chapter and faculty division. our program today is a little different from their regular lunches that take place down in chinatown. for example there is no kung pao on the menu but some things are more important in chinese food, no matter how yummy. the new supreme court term promises to be one of those very important things. so, we have pulled together a panel of experts to give us their thoughts and insights. our moderator today is pete williams, the nbc news justice correspondent reva among his many other accomplishments, pete is well known for being one of the first journalists along with his colleague dan abrams to get the reporting right on that long ago december evening when the decision came down in bush v. gore. we are grateful he is here with us today to lead the discussion.
3:31 pm
pete? >> each of our panelists has a set of cases to preview and i will delete your you have full biographies. playboy magazine just declared the university of virginia america's top party school. but if it were like that when tenet wainstein graduated he spent his career making up for it by getting very serious. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> in the library the whole time. >> federal prosecutor in new york, u.s. attorney in washington, chief of staff to the fbi director robert meueller and he began the justice department lawyer to fill the position as the attorney general for national security he then served as the homeland security adviser to president george w. bush and is now in private practice in washington. ken, please. spec the panel starts off with a reference to playboy magazine, but i will see if i can catch my breath and go forward. thanks very much, pete. good to be here. i've been asked to talk about three cases.
3:32 pm
1i guess you could call a national security case and then number to a more regular case. let me start with the national security case and that is called blabber versus amnesty international. it's actually standing case but it's a standing case relating to a challenge to what's called the fisa amendment act passed in 2008, and was an amendment through a very substantial amount of the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed in 1978, and to understand the standing issue of the stakes at play you have to understand the merits a little bit so let me get into them. >> for those watching on c-span, what is standing? >> the question of whether a party actually has the right to appear in court and to challenge come in this case to challenge the statute. ..
3:33 pm
just to get to the merits for a minute. it passed in 1978 the aftermath of the expos in the mid 70s about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short it set up the system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to to wiretapping for national security purposes to get intelligence information. this is a way of making sure there was a court that had a
3:34 pm
check and a role in reviewing the government's efforts for wiretapping which was used in the past when there haven't been any court will. the problem with the statute as designed in 1978 is congress tried to limit it so it focus on communications in the united states and it was the ninth in a way that didn't require going to the court, national security agency work others to wiretap people outside the united states. the problem is by defining the parameters of what communications require or what surveillance required approval and which ones didn't the statute referred to technology of the time. communications that were wired and communications that were radio or satellite technology. in 1978 we saw a dramatic change in technology of communications in particular fiber optic cables
3:35 pm
all over the world which very much change the reality of communications and change the requirement that the government faces when they try to do this electronic surveillance and the results of that is leading up to 9/11 many instances where the government would have to go to court to get an order before they could electronically survey or wiretaps somebody overseas and that was not the intent originally. the surveillance act amendments act of 2008 was meant to address that problem. the government is trying to surveil somebody overseas and have reasonable basis to believe that person is overseas and not in the united states they don't have to go to the court. they get special permission for that particular surveillance. that was what was radically different about 2008 statutes. allowed the government to go
3:36 pm
forward with communication surveillance for a number of people without getting special permission for each and every communication. the problem of course is for people like in this case that meant their communications might get swept up even though they were in the united states because by communicating with somebody on the south side they get picked up in surveillance. the merits will be fought out some day but there are a couple questions as to whether or not there is a perception on the war department and if there is it is still an issue the supreme court hasn't ruled on and whether or not this communication if there is a requirement whether it is reasonable in away it is conducted. those are the merits. the issue is one of standing. they are being incidentally wiretapped and communicating
3:37 pm
with people overseas. out of concern for that they are traveling to meet these people and clients overseas and meet them in person to be intercepted and expending money and having to travel and killing their communication because of the concern that what they say to their clients or others might get picked up. that is the injury they claim they have. the government says that injury is illusory and no different from an attorney for a mafia crime family who will challenge criminal wiretaps that it because the return -- mafia clans may be wiretapped. you have no right to challenge an otherwise valid surveillance because you might get incidentally connected. that is the standing issue.
3:38 pm
the government said there is no injury that allows them to go into court. the stakes at play here are the following. obviously standing is found or go forward and prevail and the amendment act is unconstitutional, that would undermine a very valuable collection, is up for reauthorization this year and the attorney general and director of national intelligence filed letters saying it is enormously important tool in the effort against terrorists threats. a second concern is if they find standing in this case that would lead to other challenges by people who have less injuries, that would mean more cases would come in to court where the intelligence programs are challenged and disclosure of secrets of those intelligence programs and that would undermine national security.
3:39 pm
the last issue and probably the most globally important is standing is found in this case, more likely similar cases would be brought to the courts and more likely judges as opposed to judges in the executive branch with policy issues with lines that should be drawn around the intelligence programs. that is the thing for the justices when they designed this. that is the national security case. two criminal cases they wanted me to mention to round out the criminal docket for this year. one is bailey versus the united states. it is fairly straight forward. question is the extent of the ruling in the 1981 supreme court case, that case says when law enforcement agents executed a
3:40 pm
search warrant and there is an occupant they can be attained that and execute the search warrant. the issue here is whether that will extends to somebody who walks out of that residence before the search warrant is exited and the police follow that person some distance and stop that away from the premise. you have a defendant -- come forward and say there was drug dealing and police got a search warrant and surveyed the house. a man fitting the description of the informant said it was a drug dealer operating at location. that man left with another man and drove away. he made statements connecting to the premises and they brought
3:41 pm
him back to the premises and officers found guns and drugs in the location and placed him under arrest. he moved to suppress the evidence seized in the house claiming he was stopped illegally and the court found they applied to on the premises. people were a mile away or driven away. the arguments in short, the rationale and the justification is that recited their, police have any authority on the location of the search warrant and those answer to the police keeping people on premises from distracting police when doing the search and keeping people from fleeing. the petitioner says they don't fly here. we have driven away. we couldn't distract the police
3:42 pm
when conducting the search warrant because we had driven away and didn't have to worry about flight because we didn't know the search warrant was happening. what reason would we have to flee? government response is in this day and age everyone has a cellphone. could have gotten a call or turned back around or taken police officers. there is the officer safety concern. same concern about getting in the way of the searched and the government is advocating a rule that so long as they stop the person as soon as reasonably practical after the person leave the residence the rule applies to make it stop. the significance of this is what the government is proposing is a further extension of the ability to take the incident to a search warrant and just as we have seen in the reverse, the expansion of
3:43 pm
the right to search we are seeing the same thing here. the footnote is despite the apparent victory of the defense they win because even if they win on a summer issue the government still argues to stop the defendants. they have a reasonable position that is valid or evidence obtained pursuant to stocks. i was asked to talk about marilyn versus king. i can speak about that. >> why don't you take a minute off. >> all right. marilyn versus king is a case that is pending and this is of fourth amendment case but the question is the validity of state and federal laws that allow for the collection of cells from the inside of the mouths of people who have been
3:44 pm
arrested. 27 states in the federal government allow officers to swab the inside of a mouth of anyone who gets arrested and a profile is put in a system where it can identify the person who is there for that charge and connect to other crimes. in this case the defendant was arrested for burglary, the swap was checked and came back as a hit to an old race -- rate case. gets convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the rape and challenged at the trial level and moved to suppress the slot and the results and any connection to the rate and the court of appeals ultimately found it should have been suppressed. and invalidated the law in maryland with six other states in the federal government allowing swabbing of people who
3:45 pm
are arrested. they did a balancing of defendant privacy and government interest in getting information and look at what the factors are. in terms of the defendant's privacy how intrusive is it to stick a swab in the mouth versus fingerprinting and also focused on the maryland court of appeals on the concern that this process subjected the defendant to having his dna profile and genetic traits be exposed to government and that was a particularly intrusive -- the defendant interest is not that strong. they don't even determine anything about the genetic characteristics. you just get a profile to other
3:46 pm
samples. the government is arguing besides the fact the government interest is not that strong, to identify the person who is arrested on the case but also the ability to get those to bounce off of the big dna database that has all the dna samples. that he essentially is the argument. it will be granted and that is the prediction. the stakes are high and that process is tremendously important. incriminating crimes and exonerating people for crimes they didn't commit. >> thank you very much. if you have not run into legal commentary you don't get out much. for covering the supreme court for the new york times stuart taylor has written about legal affairs for every big name
3:47 pm
publication that was held. and sometimes practices what he preaches as a lawyer and first to warn against the rush to judgment in the duke lacrosse case and wrote a book about it and now has a new book about affirmative action which is an issue the supreme court will be taking up calls mismatch. how affirmative-action hurts students is intended to help and why universities won't admit it. great time to summarize the entire book in the title. the co-author -- he and his co-author filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the affirmative-action case. start with that. >> my assignment includes the same case i have written which requires confession of bias but also helps me with homework. the case of fisher versus university of texas, first affirmative-action case in 2003 which will be argued on october 10th i will spend a
3:48 pm
minute on vance versus state university witches' workplace harassment case. we argue -- i should briefly disclose -- that black students and hispanic students are often harmed by racial preference by being put in academic environments without warning where they are ill-prepared to compete with some of the most competitive students in the country. we also argue under principles previously established by the supreme court university of texas racial preference system is unconstitutional. but respectful arguments both ways on that and the reasons that i think fischer is a good bet to become the most important affirmative-action case ever is simply the changing composition
3:49 pm
of the court and in 2003, the university of michigan case, notably the one on university of michigan law school affirmative-action, courts went 5-4 and opened the door fairly wide as long as things are holistic and fairly wide to why racial preference and admissions and served as a model for universities around the country, medical school and law school and the undergraduate school to in french and expand, shows low use of racial preference even though it laid down principles that would restrain these preferences. the reason they say taxes wins is mainly that justice sandra day o'connor who wrote the opinion which was 5-4 retired in 2005 and replaced by justice
3:50 pm
toledo --alito is a vote against racial preferences. we have four solid votes in favor of racial preference, four solid votes we think are against racial preferences. the more conservative justices and justice kennedy who sits in 7 cases right in the middle. kennedy joined the majority on one critical point. that racial diversity had education will benefits that are substantial enough to make a compelling interest and compelling interest justifying use of racial preference if necessary to get this but kennedy dissented forcefully on the narrow tailoring requirements. the university failed to show that it matched the principles
3:51 pm
that the majority laydown. too much difference to the university claims. the principals are briefly that racial preference should not be resorted to until race neutral alternatives have been exhausted to serve interests of racial diversity and racial balancing is absolutely barred and suggest by racial balance seeking -- the racial groups in population at large. and racial preference are not perpetual. we should expect this won't be necessary anymore. that is 28. they are gone but implication of the court's statement was universities will not wait until the last day of the 24 year and
3:52 pm
just stop but no sign any university i know of has been slowing down and using -- if anything to the contrary. there is internal tension within the greeter opinion that will be worked out to some extent in fisher. so large are the stakes in this case that organizations representing every major establishment institution in america with university educational establishment in corporate america and retired military people have waited on the side of the university of texas. the american establishment for racial preferences for better or worse. hundreds of organizations, preferences. by contrast only 17 briefs have been filed on the other side mostly by small conservative
3:53 pm
advocacy groups. this illustrates a stunning disconnect on the racial preference issue between the establishment institutions and people who run institutions who have various reasons to one a formula for racial peace and the american public at large with racial preferences by a wide margin and community poll that makes it clear how they operate. five of the current justices struck down university of michigan racial preference regime and justice kennedy being the fifth but he never said racial preference should be banned entirely. to the contrary he says there may be a compelling interest that he never identified a case in which he thought the compelling interest justified preference plan in question so
3:54 pm
the issue in this case is whether kennedy will think it -- that this case has greater justification for racial preference than the university of michigan law school did or that established a precedent to follow. one interesting thing is the court wouldn't have granted this case and standing problems and liberal and conservative supreme court, i am for at them, and the publication schedule. some people said their granting this took a graywacke affirmative-action. then i remind myself and only takes four votes to grant a case. did kennedy vote to grant this case and is eager to affirmative-action?
3:55 pm
we won't really knows that and we will find that on october 10th during the oral argument. if they want to take a whack at affirmative-action, decided they will be going by for a while. justice kennedy in the end force to say yes or no to this plan would say no. the arguments that these preferences pass muster was upheld by unanimous panel of the fifth circuit court of appeals including emilio garza whose opinions that i hate racial preferences because the supreme court tied my hands so i have to uphold them. on the other hand seven of 16 judges of the fifth circuit voted to grant rehearing on bank and reverse so they didn't saying he tied their hands.
3:56 pm
there is speculation that there is concurrence in the result rather than strategic vat he was sending a message to the supreme court. you guys wrecked everything. even i can't hit these racial preferences the you have to give me more ammunition. whatever the motivation there is strong arguments on both sides. best argument is the court said you can't have numbers or quotas or targets. we don't have any of those things. not that many people are involved here. the number of kids admitted based on racial preferences to the university of texas on top of the so-called texas 10% plan which is not an issue in this case and no challenge to the requirement the top-10% be admitted to the university of texas. that the number who are admitted on top of that, blacks and
3:57 pm
hispanics based on racial preference isn't very large. that is true. arguments coming back to the other side that are most specific to router are the university of texas whatever numbers are search and explicit target of approaching representation of the population proportional representation of each racial group in the population. we need more hispanics because there are more hispanics in the population and fewer asians by implication, because they represent the university. that sounds like racial balancing. i am short, no racial balancing. you could say they engage racial
3:58 pm
balancing. they also say they want critical mass. substantial representation of minority students not just the university but in every class. to get from here to critical mass will take 50 years or 100 years. i don't think it will get done -- this was supposed to be the limit. it could go either way depending on which of those friends of analysis he wants to take on. one other case. i will leave that case now. i will make that on the case fisher makes. they're adding to a state law that already achieved the 10% plan for racial diversity by admitting the top-10% and all so they used extremely large double
3:59 pm
standard admission and i think the public may not realize how large the standards are. and both groups are prepared over whites with all three being preferred and evidence suggests lower ages. in 2009, they were admitted outside the top 10% system. a staggering 167 points, separated as 80 scores. and the racial gaps for these freshmen mirrored the gaps. and the brief says these are so large kids are on the low end, will have trouble competing. let me turn to the other case
4:00 pm
and summarize. to be argued on november 26th the supreme court -- liable under title 7 where pervasive or severe workplace harassment by a supervisor based on race, gender or other characteristics. there's a conflict among federal courts of appeals about who is a supervisor so the justices agreed to review the seventh circuit's 2011 decision in advance which went for the employer to clarify scope of the employer liability. >> is justice elena kagan taking part? >> she is not. it matters cosmetically. if there are five votes to reverse their five votes to reverse and having florida senators who would not make much difference, i could imagine that if you are justice kennedy you might think is it a little unseemly to be doing something
4:01 pm
this big without a full court? >> to state the obvious if there's a 4-4 tie -- >> yes. university wins and the reason justice elena kagan refused is she presided over a brief at the justice department when she was solicitor general filed in lower courts for the university of texas. >> next panelist knows the supreme court from the inside having been a law clerk to justice thomas. carrie severino is the only member of the panel to seriously overprepare for life by getting a master's degree in linguistics. that may help her as she speaks and writes on legal issues as chief counsel of policies director of judicial crisis network. an organization that advocates in favor of judicial nominees with conservative values. carrie? >> i will have my linguistics to speak fast here because i have been tasked with talking about two categories of cases none of which has an actual grant.
4:02 pm
the these categories i could talk about a collection of cases to give you a sensitive field. one is in the same sex marriage case, defense of marriage case and proposition 8 case and voting rights act cases. both are issues the court is likely to take on but we don't know exactly how that is going to play out because they have not granted certain cases yet but they also share some interesting aspects on the relationship between the state and federal government. to turn to the defense of marriage act i will talk about those cases first, a little less likely to improvise different angles. first for history on doma it has two main sections. section 2 has to do with trying to protect states from being forced to recognize marriage in other states they would not
4:03 pm
recognize in their own. section 3 is being challenged which is the section that deals with the defense of marriage for federal purposes. federal law and federal taxes that says for the purpose of federal law, marriage means a legal union between one man and one woman, husband and wife. that is the section of the law president obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the
4:04 pm
front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that provides
4:05 pm
a wrinkle in the case. basically losing both levels in the case and district court found the first circuit, the defense of marriage act was unconstitutional and they ruled on the equal protection clause and created sort of the new level of scrutiny as a heightened but not officially-scrutiny which i think would be the source of concern with the supreme court figuring out what level of scrutiny is appropriate to be used. this is the only case that has an appellate decision being appealed to the supreme court. and the petition for review in the supreme court and that petition was ready for consideration in the first conference but they didn't end of taking action. they seem to be holding on. another case which has not had
4:06 pm
the appellate decision but the government has recommended a grand, this is a case out of california and in this case we have a district court finding it unconstitutional but they have not had a ninth circuit argument yet. the same day the department of justice filed in the massachusetts case they file the petition for review. supreme court ruled 11 is rarely granted but in certain extraordinary cases the issue of overriding national importance it does grant these things. they say you may want to consider this case. a grant of judgment is warranted to assure the court has an appropriate vehicle in which to resolve issues in a competitive fashion. i read that as shorthand for justice elena kagan is recused so we have another ce that is
4:07 pm
set up an already appealed to but we would rather have elena kagan voting on this case. they file a petition the same day to suggest they were thinking of it. it is not clear the department of justice has standing to appeal because they are arguing the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. the court found the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. that is one reason the court would be hesitant to take this case and this applies to several other cases. and there is windsor versus u.s. which was the new york case. all of these have been petition for review by the supreme court and in all the other cases the petitioner was the person who won below. this is a serious standing problem with you have standing to appeal a case for got everything you wanted in the case before. seldom has additional vehicle
4:08 pm
issues that would make the supreme court want to take them for the marriage was conducted in canada so the court would have to answer a question by new york state law whether the canadian marriage is valid so there are reasons they might not be great vehicles so it boils down to the massachusetts case in the first circuit and the california case that hasn't gone to the ninth circuit yet. department of justice would want to take the case because they want to have elena kagan on the case and a clear votes against doma. there are strong reasons to take the case. they heard the appeal and urgency concerns are not there when you have another case that is a perfectly good vehicle. the question is whether the court views risk of running into a decision which is a serious risk as being enough to push them into the unpleasant situation of having a case that
4:09 pm
hasn't been full the doubled ahead of time. they are holding them all to decide that together because they have not made that call yet. the windsor and peter some cases, finished briefing at the end of october. and november 20th, that keeps it pushing the issue of until after the election and doing fine. they would rather not have the court be part of the ecb election run up and i am sure if they had granted the same-sex marriage case that these would be factoring into the campaign more than as. a few justices in particular would rather have them why low. the proposition 8 case, if it is history of proposition 8 california has several iterations, proposition 22 says there will be no same-sex marriage in the state and that was found unconstitutional under
4:10 pm
the california constitution and the court found the california constitution already provides same-sex marriage under legal protection clause and there was a brief period when same-sex marriages were performed in california. simultaneously there was proposition 8 being prepared and the election pass it. 52% majority as a referendum to amend the california constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. that presented an interesting history which plays into the way the court has decided. this case was a sensational trial and allegations about john walker was the district court judge trying to publicize it and getting shot down by the supreme court and a lot of questions as to the propriety of sitting on the case or how he managed the case and ultimately came down to no one's surprise. a very broad ruling finding
4:11 pm
basically same-sex marriage mandated by equal protection clause of the constitution. not merely that this one -- [talking over each other] >> you need not marry a member -- the state must under the equal protection clause allowing same-sex marriage but his ruling is very broad. not just california. if he is right every state cannot define their marriage as only between a man and a woman. ninth circuit took that case and came up with a more narrow ground. it looks to me it is all so uniquely tailored to appeal to justice kennedy. judge reinhardt wrote the 2-1 decision upholding it and basically says we are not even going to address whether this passes the rational basis for scrutiny as a matter of itself but once you have a state where there is a law that already says it is on the books that you eliminate that right for a class of people here or people who
4:12 pm
want to engage in same-sex marriage heightened rational basis scrutiny, there seems to be no reason for that except animus against the class of people you are removing. it makes a difference in their mind that it is removing it from a right that was already there. set aside that the right was the mayor after california court found if after this history of citizens having passed referendums trying to block and the courts continue will be finding the right again he said it doesn't matter if it was there for a year or a week for a day you have the right and take it away that is an equal protection violation. criticizing the 1-year ratcheted, once you get it right even if it is not required you can never take it away.
4:13 pm
he says it is not one way just once you give a right you can't take away. not sure how that is not a 1-way ratchet but it is a more narrow ground. that case only of lies to the situation in california as a way it is decided now. the supreme court hasn't made its call for this case it is possible that they would take it. if they take it, it will mostly be to shoot them down. if they approve of what they have done they will let it stand. it is a quirky opinion that it won't have that brought of an effect except potentially expanding the way it is being interpreted. the ninth circuit is interviewed by a lot -- kerri controlling precedent. they don't worry about leaving if they didn't want. if the court takes it is is because they take issue with the way judge reinhardt decided this
4:14 pm
and arguably controlling case baker vs. nelson in the supreme court decided a good summary dismissal of similar challenge to a minnesota law defining marriage between a man and a woman but the courts hand it to consider that. the supreme court may be concerned their president is not being taken seriously. those are the main cases we are likely to see come up in the same sex marriage area. turning to the voting rights act which has another set of cases but also a clear front runner. the voting rights act also has two main sections that are of interest. section 2 for overbids voted discrimination trying to stop taxes and efforts to keep blacks from voting. section 5, and work around from the discriminatory practices listed in section 2. what section 5 says is if you
4:15 pm
are state or jurisdiction required pre clearance you can't change your voting rules unless you clear the matter of time. the presumption of doing something wrong here and covered jurisdictions were those started in 1964 who were using these improper practices or less than half of the voting population registered to vote. suppressed minority voter registration. or originally authorized for five years to suggest the analysis, things to fix racial discrimination should be time limited. originally they were optimistic. five years ought to do and we will have it fixed and will they were not quite there yet and wrapped it for another five years and on to reauthorize in 25 years so less optimistic about race relations over time but over the years kept reauthorize and yet and not
4:16 pm
since 1972 officially changing which jurisdictions are covered. the test for whether a state or municipality should be required to go to pre clearance in a very heavy regulatory burden to do anything with voting laws has to do with whether you are discriminating as of 1972. that is the argument with -- the court suggested and challenged several times the constitutionality par tons -- you could have -- we have the indiana voter id upheld and texas voter id which is similar is being held up by the clearance process and the court even said doesn't matter if you like the indiana case. indiana is not under the clearance routine. you might be fine constitutionally. is a totally reasonable system but you have to be pre cleared and that is a higher standard so you have certain states held to
4:17 pm
a higher standard than others not based on what they are doing today. in texas there is hire minority registration and higher numbers in government positions in indiana. only matters in 1972 you were having problems. several places have challenged this. one of the majority black town in north carolina. part of a county that has been covered since 1965 and they refused to allow them to change nonpartisan elections even though the majority of the voters were mostly minority voters and they wanted change and challenging it the department of justice apparently purposely muted the case and changed their mind and decided to allow this change and getting a to proper level to appeal. they have nonetheless petitioned for a review. they had vehicle problems because of that.
4:18 pm
shelby county, alabama is another jurisdiction covered since 1965 and shelby county did not ask for pre clearance. they basically said you are requiring us or not requiring other states. is not fair. full disclosure, we filed naked briefs on behalf of ourselves and former officials criticizing the use of section 5 but nonetheless the most likely case to be taken because of the movement issue and there are a couple cases coming up. i mentioned the texas voter id case. they have a pre clearance issue with voter id and redistricting that has been working on a year and more and the law was passed in 2011 and the pre clearance and that is a lesson how challenging it is. south carolina -- they were in
4:19 pm
the middle of litigation. this is a costly and time-consuming process to do this. the court has suggested in the past that justice kennedy in an earlier decision in the texas context there are some real concerns about the unequal weight states are being treated and may be tipped their hand and made a unanimous decision just this week called tenet versus jefferson. that was in west for junior house redistricting question and trying to keep -- reorganize their county based on the census and got shot down because of slight variations in the number of people in each county and the court said we will give them some deference in the fact is they're looking at to try to keep entire counties together. these are perfectly reasonable things to do. the difference in the size of the district is so huge and that suggests they are leaning
4:20 pm
towards according to difference in state legislature instead of having this overinvolvement in the process. look for those cases coming up but not early enough to affect the november election. >> thank you. an obscure section of u.s. code specifies whenever 15 people gather to talk about the supreme court the next panelist must be present. tom goldstein made the scotus blog which is the indispensable one about the court. more than a million people turned to the blog for word of the decision which they got fast and accurately. tom spends his free time as a lawyer specializing in the supreme court. he argued 25 cases before justices which is a remarkable number for a lawyer who can accurately be described as young. >> thank you so much to the federal society. there is no organization in the united states which is better
4:21 pm
serving of a forum for the principal legal issues of the day or rate lawyers for unbelievable journalist. i have been asked to comment on the voting rights. such an incredibly good job describing -- very little to add and i will talk about the business cases. two points i want to make about the same sex and voting rights cases is why it is justices would get involved because these cases are not on the docket. it famously takes only one of 100 cases, but scotus is -- there's a rule that says if we are going to strike down a federal statute that is our job so they're likely to step in. the voting rights act cases several of them come on appeal. you have to ask for permission to grant a review in your case that there are tiny little slivers of cases in the united
4:22 pm
states code that there is a right to go in the supreme court with different ways of dodging them but the voting rights act they almost have to take and in the northwest austin case they suggested serious concerns about the constitutionality of section 5. they took the cases. the second point is what to expect from the pivotal justices. justices kennedy on ideological questions and one might wonder about the confidence on real suspicion about a rate base program. and he might be an ally after the roker case. and the conservative world view and to endorse constitutional right that same-sex marriages of -- a liberal world view. one single person and the reason is justice kennedy has a vision of the law in the
4:23 pm
constitutional, to his concern, treating people as black or hispanic. they are homosexual. you are not thinking of them as individuals. on the other hand striking down definition of marriage is a huge deal. it is a puzzle but no one knows the answer what he will do in these cases. the second thing to think about is john roberts, the chief justice. he does a pivotal role ideologically, and how fast the court does anything. and he will do a thick vote to. the chief justice was more
4:24 pm
concerned taking things incrementally. do you say affirmative-action is unconstitutional? do you say there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage always or never? take a baby step in that area. would you say the voting rights act is unconstitutional across-the-board or the back on the number of jurisdictions subject to pre clearance. the other thing i will mention putting those cases is the fourth amendment case. carefully covered the docket of what is coming up. be attentive to the new grant. and driving under the influence. and -- the state lost that. and to take it but that is the
4:25 pm
case that affects a lot of people. and i will mention in passing, none of them are very interesting. there are two positions from two terms of those so walmart which famously had a class-action. hundreds of thousands of women worked for the justice -- everybody in that case together. the justices, and class-action procedure and one loss for people out there. and it abrogates a lot of people. business community concerned these cases can be so big they can be exported. civil-rights concerned about cutting back on class-action. too expensive to litigate each case one by one. the justices in the comcast case
4:26 pm
will consider the question of how much judges should decide about the case before certifying and saying everyone can be in all the lawsuits together. do they have to figure route if all these people and have one theory of damages or have to look at whether there was a fraud or securities fraud case so there will be more in line of the wal-mart decision about class-action procedure? two tiny actions. people in college try to get text books that are not incredibly expensive. the supreme court has a copyright case about what happens with market goods. text books made overseas when sold at a lower price are imported to the united states. producer of that book or any other copyrighted material have a right to limit it coming into the united states and actually a body on the questions of when a lawsuit is moved. a very lawyer the the the the issue but those who are interested and are practicing lawyers there are five cases on
4:27 pm
when someone has standing. that is the theme we run through cases that nobody will pay attention to. >> you have gone under your time. let me ask you about justice elena kagan. carrie mentioned in the case of folks in massachusetts who were challenging doma that she would be reduced in that case. the states of massachusetts filed its own claim against doma and those were decided the same day by the same district judge that separately. the district's -- the court of appeals combined them. does that mean she would have to recuse from both of those? >> it would depend on the details. we do an inside baseball analysis, layers upon it but this is the important question carrie finds. whether there are nine justices in the case and most likely
4:28 pm
there are two lawsuits but going on at the same time. it will depend on the highly technical question whether she did anything in the massachusetts state case. and her rule -- if i touched that i am out. i would guess it is likely at the time since she was in the government as the lawsuit was going on that she would have enough involvement and carrie has a right that the government -- they obviously want her but expect her to vote for that position but trying to make sure that the court has available cases where all nine can participate and i am pretty confident they are convinced she would participate in the massachusetts case. >> another question about class-action is. why is this question of when you consider fire class so important to the business community.
4:29 pm
because the ball game is certifying the class and will hold thing is over? >> that was the notion of extortion. the business community's view is once the judge says all the people are in this lawsuit together so you are not litigating damage claim of a person but the damage claim of 1,000 people or 10,000 people 100,000 people. the pressure on the defendant is so great to settle because if you lose, if you don't settle it could be bankrupting and the court has been sympathetic to that concern and been willing to say before we let loose the dogs of war significantly we better make sure these are legitimate class action and allow the judges to consider various things up front but these are two things they have not said before that have to be decided up front. whether it is allegedly fraudulent statement in a securities fraud case and a
4:30 pm
material one and do all the plaintiffs have a similar theory of damages. >> our final panelist, professor nicholas rosenkranz teaches at georgetown law center and spend the nation with commentary writing for the harvard and stanford law reviews. he too is a former supreme court law clerk for the much discussed anthony kennedy and serve in the justice department office of legal counsel as an attorney adviser and a typically for remember of the federal society board of visitors as a sideline as a broadway producer. honest. professor. ..
4:31 pm
the question is, so, a dog -- these are fourth amendment cases. a dog is brought to the front door of the house. a police sandler and a police knocked on the door. then the dog can sniff inside the house when the door is open. and alerts, signals that the door -- dog smelling whenever it was that he was trained to smell. in this case narcotics. and the question that is you in this case, is that a search? is the dog sniff a search of the house which triggers fourth amendment scrutiny? the fourth amendment says, no
4:32 pm
unreasonable searches and seizures. is that the search that triggers our fourth amendment inquiry? you know, i actually think it's a pretty -- well, on the one hand the court has many times said, no, darkness are not searches. the only way that this is different, it is a house. a lot of concern about privacy within the home. so on the one hand you have these prior dog sniffing cases. on the other hand, there is this case called kilo which is about thermal imaging a house. and the court says, so, peering into the house as it were by reading the heat signature that is coming out from the roof and the wall. the court said that was a search. so you could say, well, is this like kilo? a dog peering into the house? the thermal imager, or was it like all those others? at think it is very likely the court we will say this is like the other dog sniffing cases, not up search.
4:33 pm
the key difference between kilo and that dog sniff, if you think about is, you think about trying to balance the cost and benefits of the search. the cost and benefits of the search or not search. and one of the costs of police searches are costs to privacy. exposing information that you would rather keep secret. and as to that, a dog sniff is actually the least intrusive imaginable fang because it is that -- the result is totally binary. it is either, there is contraband or there's not, but it tells you nothing else about what is in the house or what you're up to or whether you have pornography or whatever else you might find embarrassing in your home. it distills you drugs are not drugs. in kiel of the court was careful to point out that the heat signature could tell you other things. it could tell you when the lady of the house was taking her bath
4:34 pm
and that sort of thing which was a concern to the court, but the docks at does not tell you that. i don't -- i think that is actually a pretty easy case, and i think that the court and i would not actually be surprised that was unanimous. so the second case, this other dog sniffing case involves the police officers stopping a car. i think the taillights is out or something. and the dog, take the dog around the car. alerts on the door handle. signals that they smell something. trained to smell. and this is a different dimension of the fourth amendment question. the car, and then the police officers it is the car to find out kind of contraband. rasping at different question. does the dog sniff constitute
4:35 pm
probable cause for the police went to search? is that and nothing permission for the police officer to go on to now open up a car door and think to public decide. there are a bunch of other facts. there was apparently nervous. there are other reasons for the place of sir to be suspicious, but what the cases trying to get at is how much information as the darkness give you. is it enough to constitute probable cause for the surge? and it's a kind of tricky case. i started out thinking this also was an easy case. the court would say this was fine, but in the government's brief, it kind of overreaches. it really sounds a lot like justice to all we are the government. don't, you know, worry. these dogs are well-trained. the likelihood is really pretty good. and it's not that persuasive, actually. the florida supreme court which decided this is not a cake, it
4:36 pm
just wanted some other facts. with a second. can you tell us how often there are false positives to back off to the dog alerts and they're in fact are not drugs? tell us about the training programs and what the statistics are? ultimately this is supposed to be a probabilistic inquiry. one of the odds? what are the odds? the government, the petitioners says, well, @booktv sorry, but the petitioner, the respondent says the dog often alerts to residuals. things that were not in the car now but were at some prior point or even, you know, smells that were on people's hands as they open the handle of the door. as it happens, the dog is trained to alert to methamphetamines. what they find in the car is not actually meant better means, but precursors to methamphetamines, the driver apparently a methamphetamine addict may be as
4:37 pm
some on his hands as she transfers the smell to the door. the dog alerts on the doors. that's what happened. well, how often did that happen? often is it really just residual smells to back the crowds attendance or gas station, the government says, look. we allowed this for people. if the police smell marijuana they can then follow that up. better sense of smell. surely if it's okay for him and it's okay for the dark. you could argue the other way. the dog has a better sense of smell and thus he will pick up the residual smell that the human being would not. so, you know, what constitutes a false positive is one question. is it false of the dog is actually alerting on residual
4:38 pm
small? and then, do we care? do we need to know what the odds are? that is what is at issue. i think the government brief overreaches a bit. i think the court we will say something about needing to know the statistics and needing to know. the court is comfortable saying that stuff. they say the fingerprints and dna. they like to know the stats, the odds. probabilistic inquiries. i don't think that they will quite agree to the, trust us, we are the government's theory. i will say one other thing. it puts pressure on a lot of this doctrine, a couple of missteps. earlier missteps. one of them is, as a general matter, if you are conducting a search you need a warrant. and that is not obvious on the text of the fourth amendment and is probably wrong, but it pushes -- it puts a lot of pressure on the definition of surged light makes you want to say, this is not a search because if it is a search you have to get a warrant.
4:39 pm
may be crazy in some circumstances. if we did not have that, if we took the text of the fourth amendment seriously, it only requires that search is not be unreasonable. if we took that text seriously we would be comfortable saying, yes, the dog at the front door is a search of the house. it is a reasonable search of the house. i think that is more probably a cleaner, better way to talk to what's happening. another doctrinal, prior doctrinal error is if the search is bad we exclude the evidence. so we it to the evidence and then the criminal potentially gets to go free. and the court does not like that. the court does not like letting the bad guy go free. you know, if you imagine, to change the backs a bit, this guy has drugs in the car and make a dead body. a dead body in the car and the dog alerts but some of the search is bad, the court really does not like saying, oh, sorry. rescind you on your way now, and here's your dead body back.
4:40 pm
[laughter] they don't actually like to do that. because the exclusion rule puts pressure on these doctrines. that, i think, is the big hope for the government. >> isn't that what habeas corpus means? >> yeah, right. >> thank you. >> exactly. >> those are maybe -- nervous talking about this one. about 20 people in the room and know more about this than i at least. half of you looks like filed amicus briefs in this case. so about the statute of the alien tort statute. and so it grants district court's original jurisdiction over 80 civil action by an alien for eye toward only committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the united states a very old statute enacted by the first congress, but it sat
4:41 pm
dormant for 170-odd years. and then some civil rights type folks picked it up. and they started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and the tort took place in some foreign place. and so bringing these cases in u.s. court. the paraguayan plaintiff, the paraguayan defendant. the tour took place in paris white. they come on into a new york's state federal court and say you have jurisdiction over this. the alien tort statute. and courts have been doing for this. they have been allowing some of these cases to go forward, as odd as it stands. and so this case raised the question of whether -- so, in this particular case to my takes
4:42 pm
place in nigeria. and the guy says, i am -- the nigerian government committees. and mist treated, torture and so forth. and these oil companies, foreign oil companies were complicitous. helped the nigerian government do this to me to work implicit, aided and abetted and so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. and so they say, this doesn't apply to corporations. you can't actually sue a corporation under the statute. and that was their claim last year at the u.s. supreme court and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case. they did something very unusual, which is, they actually said to the parties to my we want to consider a broader question. go back and we would like for you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but the much more
4:43 pm
broad question of does it apply extraterritorial yet all? does it apply to axe that happen in the land of foreign sovereigns and all? it is very unusual for the court task the parties to brief a bigger issue than that which was rich elite briefed by the court. and so now the parties are arguing about whether this applies extraterritorial the and all. the sheer fact that the court did that strongly suggests that the court is nervous about the statute and is wanting to cut back on its scope. i think everybody thinks that. the big question is how far will they go. so the solicitor general says, you should be very cautious about extending it extraterritorial lee. it does not usually extend, but leave the door open. it might sometimes applied. and in particular in the up paris white case, that one
4:44 pm
actually was a good use of the alien tort statute. bracket this one little narrow set of facts, but that she says mostly yes. it is probably not going to apply generally. and some former state legal adviser held a brief saying, don't have that be the rule. have the will be a clean one that we can know what to do with and have it become a does not apply extraterritorial. i think the court might do that, but i actually think that position might prevail. the high court for justice kennedy is not usually one to close the door to an entire category of litigation. i'm more tend to think that he would save, not for this case and not for most cases, but maybe for some future case. i think he will take of you, it is kind of like the s. g. few if i had to guess.
4:45 pm
i'll give you 30 seconds. this one is called u.s. of the bond. i confess that i filed a brief in this case and then trying to -- i am hoping they court we will grant it. this case is -- so, a woman spreads chemicals on the doorknob of her neighbor. she has discovered that her husband is having an affair with a neighbor. cheese grits chemicals on the part of the neighbor. this is many different kinds of state crimes. but an ambition -- ambitious assistant u.s. attorney goes out and charges are under the chemical weapons convention implementation act. you can imagine, it was not actually targeting this kind of facts or story, but seems to fit she is using chemicals to try to harm the neighbor. she says, where does congress get power to enact this statute? word as congress gets the power
4:46 pm
to pass this thing? in the third circuit last year the court said, you don't have standing to make that argument. the u.s. supreme court said last year, of course she has tended to make that argument. ninety. go back and consider the argument. they went back in the third circuit said, okay. on the marriage, yes, congress has power to enact this. the reason is because of this treaty. they say, whether or not congress generally has power to enact something, if we enter into a treaty promising a certain category of legislation, congress automatically gets the power to enact it. even if there would not have had the power otherwise. missouri v holland from 1920 which seemed to say that. and so to put a finer point on it, trees can increase the power of congress. bines of foreign policy, agree on regulating guns near schools
4:47 pm
of violence against women or health care, whenever it is. then suddenly congress has new power on this. the third circuit's says to yes, that's the rule. they also said we urged the supreme court to have another look at this. it seems kind of crazy to us. so that is what has been teed up i have filed an amicus. really hoping the court picks it up and of rules. >> all right. thank you all. let me ask you all a question picking up on something that was said about the course being reluctant to take big steps. here we have potentially some big step cases. an invitation for the court to the deal a serious blow if but eliminate affirmative-action to strike down or up all the federal statute to seriously change the workings of the landmark civil rights law, the voting rights act. as the court going to take this
4:48 pm
big steps or is it going to do this incrementally? why don't you answer your own question? >> it is very difficult to predict because justice kennedy will have to things putting in different directions, the notion that this is a form of animus about groups and the other that the definition of marriage is an absolutely traditional institution. i think that cases like this had no chance at all. it has just been -- there has just been a change in conventional wisdom that i don't know corresponds with picking of the vote. in terms of the voting rights act and affirmative action, these are areas where i think justice kennedy does believe strongly, and when he believes strongly in something that does tend to drive the court to move further faster. so i would be surprised if section five of the voting rights act survives unscathed substantially where the court a couple of years ago sent a
4:49 pm
warning shot to congress and said, you better change this thing. when it comes to affirmative action now would be quite surprised. i don't know if they will formally overruled, but i would be surprised if it looks anything like what it looks like dow. >> the school integration case, seattle a couple of years ago was a pretty big step. i think he feels pretty strongly about racial preferences based on what he said before. based on his opinion in northwest austin case, i think it was his opinion, he feels pretty strongly that the voting rights act, section five is deeply flawed. >> the pre clearance section. >> and as -- i'm not sure where he goes next on voting rights, if not a big step.
4:50 pm
if you say to congress, this stinks', fix it. congress ignores you, what do you say next? >> at think i generally agree. they will probably take a big step partly because they have tried a little step. i think there was a lot of room to do bigger. they could do something like judge walker district court opinion and just say, the "protection right for same-sex marriage.. i don't think there's any chance they would do that. a lot of room for small steps. i think whenever they do it will be a smaller step. i suspect i don't think there will call that a big step. i don't know if it will call it overruling. though at least with whether they make it a big step or not, they will presented as a modification of existing doctrine. >> i will just say on the topic of big steps as small steps, big
4:51 pm
steps are often high tarred with the brush of judicial activism. i don't think we should do that in a kind of knee-jerk way. i think actually the big step is often the logical and necessary step. kind of a small step can be incoherent. kind of odd doctrinal anomalies. the big step is oftentimes the right answer and you should not reject it just on the grounds that it is the big step. >> endorsing judicial activism. possible that live for today. i'm just saying. let me ask you this question. does it matter how the justices get along well with each other after what we are apparently seeing, somewhat surprised to live out her feelings at the end of last term? does that matter at all in terms of what we will see happen? is that all forgotten and everyone is happy now? >> the justices have a remarkable capacity to get along . that crew could come back.
4:52 pm
despite the depth of feeling and intensity of that case, it just shows an institution that unlike most others really does function. in terms of whether it matters, there are folks here who put on record and have a good understanding of the internal dynamic. i don't think it ultimately is essential that they get along, but it makes -- it certainly makes the day go by a lot easier and it is -- one thing i will say, sometimes you get to a coherent rule when you have nine very strong-willed people who have very diverse use. people have to give. they have to be willing to kind of say, okay. i don't agree with that exactly. if i'm going to get to an opinion as five people and it. at that point it is essential that they get along because one of the things that they have been very successful about is getting these opinions that are four, three, two, justice a agreeing in part 1b42 except for footnotes seven.
4:53 pm
we know what the rules are. the relationships, i think. >> what about former clerks? >> i was just agree with tom. eichler to the term after bush of the door, and i saw no evidence whatsoever of any kind of residual personal antagonism or anything like that. i think they're able to set the work. they always seem to get along well personally as far as i can tell. >> one other related question. can we conclude anything at all about what chief justice roberts is likely to do this term based on his vote in the health care case? does that signal anything? is he now warmer plated? what does it mean? >> i don't think it means very much. i am one of those nights of to think that maybe he just wrote the opinion he wrote on health care because that's what he thought. and this seemed to me the opinion, and others will throw
4:54 pm
stuff that make always plausible enough on its own terms. there is speculation that now he has shown he is not the right wing that all the time he can go back to being a right wing that most of the time. i doubt he thinks that way. >> any other thoughts on the question about chief justice robert stack. >> i agree. i don't. >> okay. we invite questions now from those of you here. there is someone with a microphone who will make his way . >> at the price of being a bit predictable and wondering if anybody on the panel could comment on whether any of the cases you have discussed your would offer opportunities for either governor romney or president obama to score political points, upcoming debates are some other forum and what that argument might sound like on these issues. is there any earthly chance that either of them would try to do something like that?
4:55 pm
>> only a case that is that not to the radar of the broader public would be health care. i think it will be a reference back. the supreme court because the economy takes all the oxygen out of the election with a little bit of foreign affairs the supreme court just doesn't play among independent undecided voters. it is a motivator for one space to get out and get to the polls because you want this person to replace the justice when she did retires. if you want to know if there is any practical consequence in the short term, it would be at a point that carry me that the obama administration has declined to defend, the defense of marriage act. and president romney might well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of the statute, but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of civilians in something like a presidential debate. i think it will, other than health care, i can't see much happening.
4:56 pm
>> i think it -- i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative-action publicly since 1996 or four. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans to during the 90's for a while we're seeing some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the poll's don't do anymore. the democrats said maybe it's time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic council was inching down that road. but that's all gone. and i have spoken to republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was, we get so demonized if we ever raised voices against affirmative action. it's just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle.
4:57 pm
i think part of it, ironically, was there was an incredibly bitter campaign in california over proposition 209 which banned racial to the racial preferences in 1996. really better. and i think it's fair to say that there was an awful lot of demonizing and doug berry going on against the supporters of proposition 209 it was bloody. i think politicians look at that and say, boy, i don't want to get into that. in fact, joe lieberman back of his questions about affirmative action after and as a result of that campaign. he said that was one of the reasons he was backing off. my gosh, even jesse jackson is attacking me. i better rethink this. >> other questions? yes. right here. this gentleman here in the front.
4:58 pm
wait until the microphone gets to you because otherwise we will hear a word you're saying. it is working its way up the southwest freeway. there we go. >> i was just curious, and i apologize if this is obvious to everybody in the room. i was wondering, where does the bipartisan legal advisory group get the standing to essentially enforce a federal statute? i was just curious. not to enforce but to defend. >> having standing but if they are allowed to intervene, and this is something that courts to on a regular basis. for example, the supreme court, he periodically, the case where the party that normally would defend the case has chosen not to or is not choosing to advance as strong a defense as the core wants to see. navy only willing to argue one part. the court will appoint an
4:59 pm
amicus. not someone who was to intervene, but the court will appoint someone. he saw the same thing in proposition eight. governor schwarzenegger said, we're not going to defend prop. eight. and then they allowed intervenors, the groups had been advancing in the first place to do that. i think the courts, our system is based on an adversarial procedure. the court must make sure we have the argument fully. >> an act of congress. they have some skin in the game. >> there is a law. >> there is a law that says if the president is that going to defend the federal statute the attorney-general has to write a letter to both houses of congress saying, here's why. out take the unusual step of not defending it. that process, the houses of congress have the right to come in and defend the statute that the past. >> well you are thinking of other questions, i want to ask you a questn

U.S. Senate
CSPAN September 28, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 22, Syria 20, Turkey 19, United States 18, Iran 17, U.s. 16, Afghanistan 16, United Nations 12, California 12, Texas 11, Tunisia 9, Melissa 8, Baghdad 7, Exxon 7, Massachusetts 7, Washington 7, Elena Kagan 7, Kirkuk 6, Wisconsin 6, Saudis 5
Network CSPAN
Duration 05:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 9/28/2012